Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[BigEd36]

I jumped out of this thread cause it jumped the shark.

For anyone genuinely trying to sort through this stuff, Stinky Coyote is WAY too interested in some numbers to quantify things and he is unnecessarily complicating the issue…

I am not addressing him because I won’t respond to his convoluted rants. This is for anyone confused by him.

His premise is that we need a number and complex model to predict what a bullet does in tissue. He repeatedly compares terminal ballistics to ballistic flight computations and modeling. Even suggesting that a few more fields could add numbers he wants.

The problem with his approach is that he consistently fails to acknowledge what we actually know—while complaining about what we don’t have.

We have proof as plain as the pictures Form posted. But, Stinky wants numbers spit out by a terminal ballistic calculator so he can see a number attached to it.

As hunters, do we actually need numbers and a field in a ballistic calculator?

Bottom line for known highly fragmenting bullets is put them inside the vitals at least 1800 fps and it will result in lethal wounding with significant tissue damage.

There is idea that, we don’t see bullet failures is because they live—so we can’t know. That is a good question to ask, but it has been thoroughly disproven with the testing that shows incredibly consistent performance with no failures in proper gel.

If you need more than what is out there with actual FBI gel testing and confirmed in hundreds if not thousands of pictures of dead critters— you might be the kind who needs proof the moon isn’t actually cheese.

Like Form says, there is no debate about the facts anymore. Stinky is making this about numbers that he wants as proof of what we know the facts to be.

Those are two different things entirely.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

I jumped out of this thread cause it jumped the shark.

For anyone genuinely trying to sort through this stuff, Stinky Coyote is WAY too interested in some numbers to quantify things and he is unnecessarily complicating the issue…

I am not addressing him because I won’t respond to his convoluted rants. This is for anyone confused by him.

His premise is that we need a number and complex model to predict what a bullet does in tissue. He repeatedly compares terminal ballistics to ballistic flight computations and modeling. Even suggesting that a few more fields could add numbers he wants.

The problem with his approach is that he consistently fails to acknowledge what we actually know—while complaining about what we don’t have.

We have proof as plain as the pictures Form posted. But, Stinky wants numbers spit out by a terminal ballistic calculator so he can see a number attached to it.

As hunters, do we actually need numbers and a field in a ballistic calculator?

Bottom line for known highly fragmenting bullets is put them inside the vitals at least 1800 fps and it will result in lethal wounding with significant tissue damage.

There is idea that, we don’t see bullet failures is because they live—so we can’t know. That is a good question to ask, but it has been thoroughly disproven with the testing that shows incredibly consistent performance with no failures in proper gel.

If you need more than what is out there with actual FBI gel testing and confirmed in hundreds if not thousands of pictures of dead critters— you might be the kind who needs proof the moon isn’t actually cheese.

Like Form says, there is no debate about the facts anymore. Stinky is making this about numbers that he wants as proof of what we know the facts to be.

Those are two different things entirely.

Just a couple corrections to that.

1. I don't want a number to spit out of a calculator for me, but for all hunters. I can math out differences to satisfy myself no prob and was well ahead of the curve on understanding the subjectivity of terminal ballistics and what I need to use for what I do and game intended.

2. No, we don't know and don't have. We only partially know some of the story at one impact velocity point.

3. Proof of death is not required, it's death. Shades of death by subjective imagination from single point incomplete data set of one specific impact velocity to emulate and compare to all ranges against other bullets we don't have capability yet.

4. This isn't about 'needing' more, it's about 'wanting' more. So everyone can play along nicely rather than page after page, thread after thread, year after year of the same subjective shades of death discussions.

5. This isn't about modelling what a bullet does in tissue lol. It's about modelling what 'work' a bullet transfers over what distance in a standard (to represent tissue), at all fps from muzzle to where it does nothing but poke a hole at whatever distance that may be.

6. Yes we are talking about 2 different things lol.

7. And 1800 fps is good for you? with what bullet or bullet family? Why? Lol - here comes the subjective train again. 1600 fps might be what another guy wants and different bullet family. Be nice to see the expected work transfer over how many inches wouldn't it? Quick easy numbers, hardly an imagination required as you can compare to anything else we already know gives the shade of death we personally prefer from drt to 100 yard eat to the hole recoveries. Maybe you want to only hunt big stuff to 300 yards and want to compare a bunch of stuff that has usable life at triple the distances? And fine tune your selections for your goals intended and find value in bullets you hadn't considered for that particular desire/application? We tend to focus on the best bullets for drt performance and the furthest ranges here...what I'm talking about would help everyone that does everything but that. Africa, Varmints, short range, mid range, long range etc.

 

[hereinaz]

Thanks for thoughts. Your points on fbi calibrated gel are clearly right. And doing some research, the other options that retain the shape and size of representative wound cavity wouldnt save much time or money in any event. So fbi gel it is.

My idea of simplifying the size of wound cavity and penetration to a “rating” metric is simply to try to create something that would be easily and quickly communicated to a larger audience. Similar to the dumb silhouettes of game animals that bullet makers place on their ammo boxes to guide hunters to correct choices. While those are horsepucky and miss-leading, I was thinking the “metric” would be 1000 times more accurate and honest.

Based on your input, sounds like a bad idea. Its just as easy in the end to put real dimensions in a bullet rating system— something like Wound Size- 18.5 cubic inches, Penetration- 14.5 inches. Shorten it to WS18.5cu” P14.5” and its easy to understand and tied to actual terminal performance.

In the end of the day that is a minor detail to the giant elephant in room which is cost to do this testing per bullet. Especially when one realizes that every weight / caliber of every bullet has to go through the entire test protocol. Even at just $100 per gel block test thats 3k for each bullet tested. And I expect that is low.

More Random questions:

1- do you know if labs doing this work re-melt and re-use gel? I see conflicting info on-line.

2- does neck distance change enough between various hunting bullets to be worth measuring and tracking? Seems like a bullet is either expanding in the first 1-2” or its not suitable as a hunting bullet. But am I missing a use -case or a performance difference that makes this an important metric to track and compare?

Thanks,

Dag

As to reusing FBI gellatin, no you can’t remelt it.

Gellatin is actually nothing more than jello without the sugar and coloring. You make FBI gel just like jello.

To use gel it has to be made correctly and refrigerated until used. It would be a process to make and store it, which is why I haven’t done any tests. I almost bought the fake stuff, until I realized it was not a valid medium.

10% gellatin tells you it is 90% water 10% gellatin powder. The more water you use the less firm it is. The reason it can simulate tissue is because it has the water content.

The fake clear gel that is melted and reused has no water content. The many “long range” gel “tests” on YouTube showing bullets fail at known velocities like 2000 fps are absolutely useless because it has no water. That’s why I pay little attention to YT videos cause they are either ignorant or purposely misleading.

 

[Harvey_NW]

Pretty bullet = not much damage.
Kind of ugly bullet = moderate damage.
Ugly mangled remnants of bullet = big damage.

This is genius level stuff, do your best to understand what you can

 

[Bluefish]

We have proof as plain as the pictures Form posted. But, Stinky wants numbers spit out by a terminal ballistic calculator so he can see a number attached to it.

As hunters, do we actually need numbers and a field in a ballistic calculator?

Bottom line for known highly fragmenting bullets is put them inside the vitals at least 1800 fps and it will result in lethal wounding with significant tissue damage.

I am a believer that use a fragmenting, heavy for caliber bullet in the vitals and it’s going to die. Now as an engineer I can see the advantage of having something measurable to compare bullets. It would be interesting to have an energy/linear measurement and a total penetration. With those two things I could compare different bullets and/or different animal. Even just a penetration in gel for any given bullet on the box. What we get is marketing, ie want penetration get a copper or solid of some sort. Well, how much difference does that really make? Are we talking 30” of gel vs 18”? Or 24” vs 18”? Don’t know as it’s not published. If we had such numbers, you could also show that a 30 cal partition is similar on game to a 223 77tmk. Then it’s no longer an argument, ie the manufacturer just said they perform the same.

Also not everyone can use heavy fragmenting bullets, due to lead free regulations, cartridge choices, personal choice, or manufactures not making them in all calibers. So how do you achieve similar results with other options? With no metrics to measure performance how would you know, other than killing lots of animals. That’s simply not feasible for me. I might get 1-3 deer per year. I may hunt another 15 years, so I will kill less in my like than some will in a year. That’s not very many test cases.

Having quantifiable potential wounding data would really upend the dogma about what you need to use to hunt. Unfortunately most hunters don’t care that much and it could take 15-20 years for it to become the new standard.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

In time the modelling would move beyond linear for the energy vs travel. Certain families will dump more at certain impact velocity nodes in the front end than others and could be a ratio that shows it? A percentage perhaps, of energy vs vs initial travel depth etc. 2/3 energy in first half of travel and 1/3rd in last half for match say, the bonded and monos likely far more linear. We can visualize it but zero objective data to support it.

There are so many possibilities at how far this could go in usefulness for hunters, and manufacturers too (product development). No different than how far things have come in inflight ballistics development with everyone using radar now and seeing nodes of bc change etc. Allowing more accurate solutions at further and further distances.

We haven’t even started walking on this yet. We are lacking vision and ability to kick the can down the road. We’re barely starting to ask the right questions.