Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[FredH]

It’s ‘part of’ ALL we’ve ever said, and we’ve said so much more. 30 pages just this one thread alone and surely it’s not done yet.

Did we get anywhere is the question? No, not even a mm further.

The next question is why didn’t we get anywhere?

Would it have anything to do with lack of available objective information about the delivery of the work?

More like the refusal to accept mass as a part of bullet construction.

 

[WTFJohn]

Is the concept of mass and velocity impossible for you to comprehend? Why make up some irrelevant comparison? Why not consider equal velocity and construction with the variation being weight? Mass counts.

You continue to move the goalposts; it was penetration, then energy, now it's mass. No one is denying mass exists, or that it plays into the equation for KE. It is functionally worthless though to describe what a bullet does once it hits an animal.

At this point I think you're trolling given the continual shifting and misrepresentation of the discussion. Good luck going foward, wishing you positive energy.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

wishing you positive energy.

How much energy? Is it enough to kill an elk?

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

[FredH]

Without mass there is no bullet.

The bullets below have exactly the same mass. One will have 326 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle, the other has that energy at over 2500 yards. Knowing they both have the same mass and same energy, can we expect the same performance?

The answer is no. Each bullet is designed & constructed to work in a velocity window, not at an energy level.

You continually deflect from answering questions or addressing information that completely rebuts what you're saying. At this point, it's hard to say you're having the conversation in good faith.

View attachment 861915

You have not posted any legitimate information that rebuts my comments.

 

[FredH]

You continue to move the goalposts; it was penetration, then energy, now it's mass. No one is denying mass exists, or that it plays into the equation for KE. It is functionally worthless though to describe what a bullet does once it hits an animal.

At this point I think you're trolling given the continual shifting and misrepresentation of the discussion. Good luck going foward, wishing you positive energy.

Wrong. You must have a reading comprehension problem. KE is not bullet performance. It is the calculation that describes what is possible to do with the mass in general terms. A bullet with more KE can move more tissue than one with less. or with a solid bullet designed for straight line penetration more KE means more penetration. Note I did not say more velocity means more penetration.

 

[Harvey_NW]

A bullet with more KE can move more tissue than one with less.

But doesn't always, due to construction. Again, 77gr TMK from a 223 vs 200gr mono out of a 300 Ultra Mag, 400 yard broadside shot on a NA deer/elk sized mammal. Observe wound channels. Obvious difference. Energy irrelevant.

 

[5811]

@Stinky Coyote - I have been working 12 hours a day running simulations, interviewing senior ballisticians at major projectile companies, and talking to all my secret military contacts. I believe what I have created in the "Terminal Coefficient" is the answer you seek.

1. Shoot a projectile into ballistics gelatin at 25 fps increments for impact velocity from say 1000-3500 fps
2. Measure total penetration
3. Calculate energy at impact and divide by total inches of penetration
4. Plot calculation over velocity
5. Pick a terminal impact window above the minimum impact velocity at typical ranges, say 2000-2500 fps
6. Calculate the slope of the best fit line for that window
7. That slope is your unit-less TC or Terminal Coefficient.

That number can be compared with other projectiles regardless of grain weight. The slope should be higher for more frangible projectiles and lower for monos/bonded.

 

[hereinaz]

Lol, is that what you read? I read that I’ve got him by the short n curly’s and he knows it, and he looked right in the mirror with his insults about intelligence or lack there of. He’s trying to step out the side door with dignity.

But carry on we will. Because that’s all we can do. Can’t wait to hear more of his subjective explanations of all this while claiming to back it with his superior physics understanding. Loved the fly swatter and pliers thing. The insults are an easy give away on how the arguments are going.

Really, just go ahead and explain why the .700 doesn’t work. Can’t wait for that one.

And did anyone go check the 375 hh 300 gr? Sd.305 but what does it have to compensate for the lower sd of the manlicker/mauser? Guys, don’t look at me or I’m gonna have to point at Pete! He can get on base...it’s got more speed! Say 160 fps. How bout the .331 sd 30-06 220 gr, Hemingway? What does it do? Do I have to point at Pete again? It’s got both sd and another 100 fps over the old bell choices. Amazing choice imo. Go ahead and keep running the gamut, do the .400’s, ,500’s, the .35, .366 whatever...you’ll see the same damn thing. The solids with enough formula are known to work. And yup the 7-08 might too with only .248 sd but what does it have to compensate? Speed and like 300 more fps of it...what comes with that extra speed? Couple hundred ft/lbs lol. However, handgun hunter can go find out if it works as that ttsx ain’t gonna hang onto its sd at the speed he would need for impact with a solid to compensate for that serious lack of sd. I wouldn’t bet on the ttsx there, he can, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the the 7-08 with a solid 140 and those extra few hundred fps could do it. I’d still decline to be the tester though lol. Faster things are faster to slow and not proven that is the amount of fps it would need to compensate for that big of sd deficit. I’m talking about stuff already proven to work. I’m sure if Bell was still here and laws didn’t stop him he’d have a hay day showing us what may work with our common current options.

Or, wait for it, we could build a way to measure the work and save 1100 elephants. We already know what works, now let’s see why, objectively. And see what hasn’t worked, and why.

Who understands this better than the other?

Guy wants to argue this worse than I do. And steers thing off in the ditch trying to find some way to get an upper hand. Boy is wicked smaht.

It’s rich complaining about someone putting a car into a ditch that he had been driving since he hijacked it.

 

[hereinaz]

How do you account for the differences in wound channels depending on

@Stinky Coyote - I have been working 12 hours a day running simulations, interviewing senior ballisticians at major projectile companies, and talking to all my secret military contacts. I believe what I have created in the "Terminal Coefficient" is the answer you seek.

1. Shoot a projectile into ballistics gelatin at 25 fps increments for impact velocity from say 1000-3500 fps
2. Measure total penetration
3. Calculate energy at impact and divide by total inches of penetration
4. Plot calculation over velocity
5. Pick a terminal impact window above the minimum impact velocity at typical ranges, say 2000-2500 fps
6. Calculate the slope of the best fit line for that window
7. That slope is your unit-less TC or Terminal Coefficient.

That number can be compared with other projectiles regardless of grain weight. The slope should be higher for more frangible projectiles and lower for monos/bonded.

If you are comparing penetration:

How do you account for different wound channels of differing size and shape depending on impact velocity?

In animals, high velocity more often breaks up fragmenting bullets so you might not get an exit. In contrast low velocity doesn’t break up and so larger pieces penetrate further and exit.

Monos and other “penetrating” bullets may be more consistent but either slow or fast fragmenting bullets cause way more total damage than “penetration” will capture.

That is the essence of the problem measuring “energy” or other of Stinky’s suggestions.

Penetration doesn’t kill, tissue damage kills so you have to measure that.

 

[Macintosh]

… Why make up some irrelevant comparison? Why not consider equal velocity and construction with the variation being weight? Mass counts.

Both of these points have been squarely addressed in great detail, in this very thread—you have either not read the thread, or are ignoring the (many) relevant posts. Tldr: as has been stated many times, the energy is relevant at some level obviously, but it alone is not PREDICTIVE of the wound; and since it alone is not a LIMITING FACTOR in creating a wound plenty large enough kill large game, and since there are many, many combinations of equipment where larger ke does NOT result in larger wounds, many people consider other factors more important because those other factors ARE predictive of wound size without a multitude of exceptions. Thats what renders “KE”—out of context and without including more relevant info—irrelevant. Unimportant. Useless. Pick your verbiage…without more info it doesnt tell you enough to use it. Ie, its not what matters.

 

[Bugger]

We are maintaining dry powder. And there might be a few MHG members who are only seeing part of this thread. IYKYK

Seems timely. RIP Val