Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

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 🥴
Love this post. It not very complicated. I think the exact thing stinky coyote wants (a predictably calculator of sorts) is partially how the whole “pretty bullet “ phenomenon took hold. Here is the level of mushrooming at x different velocities. Super predictable right?

I’d rather have a less predictable or at least harder to compute mini grenade going off inside the vitals than a “more predictable” trajectory of a mushrooming bullet.

the light really went on for me when form talked about how with big magnums especially, the desire for mushrooming, strait penetrating bullets was so paramount companies had to keep increasing jacket thickness or go to a mono. Because fragmentation was seen as bad thing. It’s all about looks. Keep increasing hardness and remove fragmentation what you get is a literal strait line through the animal like an arrow.

Would you rather stabbed with a spear strait through you or have someone stab you with a knife then put a small grenade in your body? Which one do you think would be more easily repaired by a team of surgeons?
 
I am not assuming anything. Your words prove you really don't know what you are talking about. Using your own words, you are barely crawling with your understanding of physics, and as such what you are saying is not understandable to those of us who are running.

When a toddler babbles, I am sure it completely understands what it is trying to say, however for people who actually know the language, it is meaningless.

Do some research on the physics of energy transfer, work, torque, etc. and then come back to the discussion. If you can't understand it, that is completely understandable. It isn't for everyone.

The biggest problem that I see is that the firearms industry (just like the car industry) has tried to dumb down the physics for so long so your "average person" can "understand" that they have actually created a whole population of people who think that they actually do understand physics. Let me clue you in. You don't. Your continued misuse of terms, failure to grasp certain physical laws, and incessant belief that we can accurately creat a mathematical model of something when there are multiple very important variables that are significantly different from sample to sample just proves that.
they had to build a freakin dynometer to give us the work and speed of work for vehicle engines over it's rev range...so we could see what we wanted to see and make comparable to every other engine, which allows us to choose better for personal desires and manufacturers to develop better, we already knew a big block out worked a small block (cart), what we didn't have was the horse in front of it, until we did ;)

imagine what all had to be figured out to build the dyno!!!!!

we wanna measure the result of the work 1st? that's all all we've done and we still want to do? it's time to get a horse

and in getting our horse we will end up with answers and questions, more answers then more questions, and likely get more usable information than anticipated, and then we can make more useful ways to see and apply it and manufacturers can get to work on developing more of what we want, fill in performance gaps etc.

ie; now we can make gen1 bt cummins work with double the hp in a lightweight 4 cylinder turbo gas engine that weighs a fraction of the old 1200 lb anchor that needed 3/4 ton and up running gear and suspension, and can now fit in midsize platforms, and it's dynamic range of performance is much greater, it can sip more than a NA v8 of similar peak output levels when conditions allow and it can put down more work too when asked for and correspondingly suck more fuel than the v8 also (gm 2.7t vs the 5.3 v8), it's speed of work blows the old bt out of the water also, unanticipated benefits and development directions...don't we want to see bullet manufacturers develop bullets with a more dynamic range of performance? don't you want to have an easier way to choose from these possible future options?

lets get a horse for a change instead of always looking at the cart
 
Love this post. It not very complicated. I think the exact thing stinky coyote wants (a predictably calculator of sorts) is partially how the whole “pretty bullet “ phenomenon took hold. Here is the level of mushrooming at x different velocities. Super predictable right?

I’d rather have a less predictable or at least harder to compute mini grenade going off inside the vitals than a “more predictable” trajectory of a mushrooming bullet.

the light really went on for me when form talked about how with big magnums especially, the desire for mushrooming, strait penetrating bullets was so paramount companies had to keep increasing jacket thickness or go to a mono. Because fragmentation was seen as bad thing. It’s all about looks. Keep increasing hardness and remove fragmentation what you get is a literal strait line through the animal like an arrow.

Would you rather stabbed with a spear strait through you or have someone stab you with a knife then put a small grenade in your body? Which one do you think would be more easily repaired by a team of surgeons?
yup, but all subjective for most part, it's what we do

bell figured out with a little over .3 sd solids impacting 2200-2300 fps will get through a 1' foot of elephant head to get to the off switch, and with fack all for energy as compared to the .700 nitro where 5x the energy wasn't making it deep enough because it was lower in both sd and impact velocity, so it's not hard to see you need an unchanging sd of .3 or higher and impacting at 2200 or above to make anything work on big dg

or to drive the subjective picture home you could run into the elephant with 10x the energy again with a Land Rover at 40 mph and end up a grease smear yourself as the elephant shows you it's disdain...or run a spear through, sledge hammer vs spear, same impact velocity, same weight, entirely different sd, at some point the penetration has to be there, it's only one part of the equation, once there then what work is available for damage along the way is the other thing?, not much is needed but more does mean faster kill, less work better hope it's a sharp spear so at least it will bleed (broad heads on arrows) to speed up the process, but if you wanted to get as deep as the solids yet still throw a grenade on game that size your shoulder would vaporize under the recoil it would require...so penetration trumps always, you HAVE to make that bullet keep it's sd in order to get it deep enough on those animals and all available energy goes to the penetration, not much left for grenade work

our game is bunny rabbit tender in comparison, so we can utilize grenades and still keep our shoulders while getting as deep as we need

but wouldn't it be nice to see all of that explained like a dyno curve for a motor? ;)

numbers instead of sledge hammer vs spear subjective visualizations? you know...the same thing we've been doing all this time?

imagine, we would see by numbers why the old partition is basically similar performance as new eld-m, old partition grenades the front, hangs onto the tail, but starts with lower sd (say .2 sd) so had to hang onto tail to make penetration depths, the new eld-m just add more bullet length which increases sd (say .25 to .3 sd) to compensate for lack of a partition wall...people will laugh at that comparison but if we build a dyno for this...you will see how close I am to right (objectively, by numbers)
 
When you have every single person (lots of them with a lot of experience/knowledge in the field you're discussing) telling you that you're saying a lot of very verbose nonsense, what is your reaction?

I'd humbly suggest that there are, broadly speaking, three possible directions of thought and you should think about which one you're headed down.

1) I'm right and Every Single Other person weighing in on this is wrong and just can't understand my special genius brain.

2) I'm right but the way I'm expressing my thoughts is not coming through at all effectively. If I'm being completely misunderstood by every single person who understands this subject matter maybe I need to make some major changes to the way I try to convey my ideas

3) There's something going on that I'm not fully understanding. If everyone is telling me I'm heading down a road that doesn't go anywhere and going down it with some seriously flawed understanding of the fundamentals, maybe I need to take a step back and look at where I'm at on the Dunning Kruger curve.

Have you watched the Terrence Howard/Eric Weinstein episode of the Joe Rogan podcast? If not, you should, and realize that it seems to a lot of us that you think you're the Eric Weinstein in the conversation but in reality you're the Terrence Howard.
 
Well, three things:

1). Where did I state that the scoring system the FBI uses is the best, or what should be done?

2). With rifle projectiles; the neck length, permanent crush cavity, temporary cavity, depth to temporary cavity, temporary cavity length, and total penetration is absolutely looked at and measured- depending on the bullet and purpose.

What do you believe the gridded board and measuring stick is for?

View attachment 854272



View attachment 854273



3). You are incorrect about Fackler and the temporary cavity with rifle projectiles. The TC can be variable, but absolutely can be a massive contributor to the wounding potential of a rifle projectile- especially ones that fragment. And he knew that, measured it, and wrote about it extensively.



View attachment 854274

View attachment 854275

View attachment 854276

View attachment 854277

View attachment 854278


View attachment 854279
Neck length, temp cavity, etc are not factored at all in FBI testing, which whether you said or not is repeatedly used as “proof” of something terminally on this site. If it is being used to justify something, it should be used correctly. People also like to show side pictures of dyed gel from sites like Hornady of rifle shots in FBI barrier testing assuming the published numbers mean something because it is “FBI testing”. The only relevant information to FBI testing are the penetration depth, projectile diameter, and retained weight of the projectile. This is much to the chagrin of 45 acp fans who can’t fathom why the FBI thinks the 9mm is close let alone equal. All of the other numbers are not used by anything other than to market the product.

Dr Fackler was very much against assuming anything of the temporary cavity. His wound profiles show that the temporary cavity can be far bigger than the permanent cavity so surgeons should not assume you need to remove all tissue in the temporary cavity which was a common practice before Dr Fackler came along. As noted, Fackler also showed that temporary cavity combined with fragmentation can cause much larger wounds. However, you can’t look at a gel picture (or outside of gel) or published numbers about max cavity, depth and know anything. Fackler would disect the blocks and make some judgement based on cracks of what was permanent vs temporary damage. This was for a variety of fragmenting and non fragmenting bullets. I assume you know this but I do not think the majority of people on the site do

Lou
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0472.png
    IMG_0472.png
    275.5 KB · Views: 16
they had to build a freakin dynometer to give us the work and speed of work for vehicle engines over it's rev range...

No, they built the dynamometer so that they could create an artificial load and "check the math". They already knew how to check it. They were just looking for a simpler way to check it instead of putting the engine in a test vehicle and actually running it around a track to prove what the math already told them.
They knew how to calculate the torque and HP of engines long before the dyno was invented.

In the scenario you are proposing, the dyno already exists and you are trying to invent the math to prove what the dyno is telling you.
 
If you like to do research and reading, I don’t like reading so much, hence why I skipped from page 2 to page 20.

I believe, sincerely, that just about any gun csn handle about any game. The bullet used shoukd match the velocity and energy of the round. Some bullets perform better at a certain weight and bullet types then others in the same caliber.

Imagine a 2000 ft pound 1200 hp diesel drag truck on cheap narrow mud tires, all that power just spins the tires, no traction. Now set up some wide racing slicks and now we’re maximizing the power the motor puts out.

If you want a thorough understanding of terminal ballistics, read the fbi study done to determine 9mm vs 40 vs 45. Then apply those same theories to bullet and caliber choice for your hunting rig.

In the 2 pages I read, I didn’t see much talked about as defined as a wound channel and the awesome trauma done by creating wound cavities.
I prefer a deforming bullet vs a fragmenting bullet.

Read some police studies and bullets and calibers and apply to hunting. We’re just another type of large game animal, in theory.

 
Back
Top