Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[Macintosh]

Wallop should be understood as "total bullet energy transferred into the target" and NOT "maximum bullet energy"

The rate of energy transfer is just as importantas the total amount of energy transfer. Remember TIME is an integral part of this equation. 1000lb of energy transferred slowly is nothing, 1000lb all at once is deadly. A crash is not equivalent to a slow stop. A bungee cord is not equivalent to a steel cable. Same as a 165gr TMK at 2800fps is not equivalent to a 165gr TTSX at 2800fps.

 

[doc holiday13]

The rate of energy transfer is just as importantas the total amount of energy transfer. Remember TIME is an integral part of this equation. 1000lb of energy transferred slowly is nothing, 1000lb all at once is deadly. A crash is not equivalent to a slow stop. A bungee cord is not equivalent to a steel cable. Same as a 165gr TMK at 2800fps is not equivalent to a 165gr TTSX at 2800fps.

Correct which is why my graph in "wallop" shows steep parabolic curve for ELDM type bullets and a shallow curve for mono's. T

 

[5811]

Now if we take a 77g TMK and a 160 TMK at same velocity impacting identical target at 200 yards; the 160 will certainly wallop the target more.

I don't think anyone disputes that, but aside from potentially more meat damage, what difference does it make on incapacitation time?

 

[IDElkmagnet]

There is a lot of ways to skin the cat!
My Idaho muzzleloader setup is 1000ftlb at the muzzle it has killed al kinds of critters with a tc 370gr bullet hitting in the 500ftlb to 750ftlb range.Things just die when I shoot them.
Im not a (small caliber) guy. Im a (use reasonable thinking) guy. I typically hunt with a 300wsm or now a 7prc because I think its the best tool for me to get a clean harvest. That said a 6mm is what I think is best for my son and a lot of people may need a 223 to reach their peak odds of a clean kill.
The problem is when machismo gets in the way of reasoning. That goes for guys who think big cartridges are a pp measurement winner as well as guys who think smaller caliber are.

 

[doc holiday13]

I don't think anyone disputes that, but aside from potentially more meat damage, what difference does it make on incapacitation time?

Good Question... I don't know

I've seen Bang Flop on both ends of the spectrum. I've seen run 100 yards on both ends of the spectrum. My guess is where the bullet impacts. I'm doing a damage control shoot next week, so I'm going to experiment with shot placement within what everyone agrees is 'kill zone'.

I think i know where the light switch is, but haven't had different calibers to use all in the same outing. There will be different calibers next week

 

[5811]

Good Question... I don't know

I've seen Bang Flop on both ends of the spectrum. I've seen run 100 yards on both ends of the spectrum. My guess is where the bullet impacts. I'm doing a damage control shoot next week, so I'm going to experiment with shot placement within what everyone agrees is 'kill zone'.

I think i know where the light switch is, but haven't had different calibers to use all in the same outing. There will be different calibers next week

I think that's the crux of the "whallop doesn't matter" argument. If you can't definitively say it leads to a quicker kill more than shot placement, then pick the cartridge that allows for better shot placement more often.

 

[doc holiday13]

I think that's the crux of the "whallop doesn't matter" argument. If you can't definitively say it leads to a quicker kill more than shot placement, then pick the cartridge that allows for better shot placement more often.

Here is the issue i'm running up against. I've seen more Bang Flop from generalized 'kill zone' shots with large caliber. Whereas generalized kill zone shots with small caliber seem to be 'run 100 yards' . I will say that it seems that smaller caliber needs a more precisely located within the kill zone if you want a Bang Flop

 

[Thegman]

Quoting this for emphasis

This is why Wallop is a thing.. Just not how people have been understanding it.

2 bullets of identical weight and speed, but different construction will wallop differently.

Both carry the same energy. If bullet A transfers all energy into the target it wallops more than bullet B that passes through

In another scenario take a 77g TMK at 2675 fps and a 180 TTSX at 2675 both hitting a 200 yd target. There is the high likelihood that the TMK puts more energy on target if the TTSX exits. The TMK will certainly create a larger wound at minimum.

Now if we take a 77g TMK and a 160 TMK at same velocity impacting identical target at 200 yards; the 160 will certainly wallop the target more.. If the target is a deer, I can guesstimate that it will likely loose a limb.

Wallop should be understood as "total bullet energy transferred into the target" and NOT "maximum bullet energy"

No, not really. The 180 TTSX likely exits, so it does take energy there, but it also has 2.3x more energy than the 77TMK to start with. It's possible the TTSX "dumped" as much energy as the TMK and still had more than enough to exit as well. It's not a mutually exclusive result.

E.g. , I've shot moose, broadside, with both 77 TMK (223) and 165 TSX (308). Both bullets at about the same muzzle velocity, both moose at about the same distance. Both moose died just fine. The moose hit with the 165 TSX had lung chunks sprayed on the brush on the other side of the moose. The moose hit with the 77 TMK didn't. How much "energy dump" did each moose receive? Hell if I know.

There are so many variables in these situations, knowing KE of the bullet just can't be a good predictor of results. Much more instructive IMO to consider bullet weight and construction, impact velocity, and target. Knowing those four criteria will give about the best prediction of terminal effects. None of that requires any knowledge of KE.

 

[FredH]

Here's 2 different and more succint explanations that hopefully show how a bullet with less kinetic energy can actually exert more force on an animal to create a larger wound:


Here's what chatGPT has to say about it:
View attachment 921348

View attachment 921358

ChadGPT? Snicker snicker....... again bullet construction matters. With identical bullet construction the larger mass/more energy will impart more damage. Why is it different bullet designs are pitted against each other? There are times I might want a tougher slower expanding bullet to use if I need deep penetration.

 

[FredH]

Here is the issue i'm running up against. I've seen more Bang Flop from generalized 'kill zone' shots with large caliber. Whereas generalized kill zone shots with small caliber seem to be 'run 100 yards' . I will say that it seems that smaller caliber needs a more precisely located within the kill zone if you want a Bang Flop

I have had considerably more short trails and drops using larger cartridges. Standard cup and core 150 grain bullets from a 308 or 30-06 are deadly on deer. The last deer I shot with a 223 took 3 shots and all three were placed pretty good. Bullet performance sucked. The same shot placement with a good bullet from anything 243 and up would have put that deer dead with the first shot. My 35 Whelen has been an excellent performer on many animals some pretty big. Mass and diameter do matter. There seems to be some misconception that larger diameter bullets don't open quickly. All deer are not shot with perfectly broadside hits. All deer do not drop just because they are hit with the latest fad plastic tipped bullet. It is not uncommon for a deer with it's chest full of bloody mush to run a ways.

 

[Thegman]

There is something missing in your comment. Logic. Without energy there is no function by the bullet.

The bullet's construction decides how much it penetrates or doesn't. A bullet can use up it's calculated energy by expanding dramatically which limits penetration, or as in a good controlled expanding bullet blending expansion and penetration to get both destruction and exits. It is idiocy not to consider bullet construction in the application of calculated energy. A bullet is in itself inert. It does not add to calculated energy numbers because it deforms. It applies the energy it has in the way it is constructed to apply it.

If he's a good hitter, why doesn't he hit good?

We talk about energy, energy, energy...but then never actually apply KE numbers to wound channels. We talk about bullet size/weight/construction and impact velocity. If KE is that important to the calculation, why don't we use it in the calculation?

BTW, I've used the Barnes 110 Tac-TX from my 308 in a similar way (not quite as fast) to your idea of using the 110 CX. It lost all it's petals and the base lodged in the far side shoulder hide of a large bodied whitetail. Shot was through the neck-shoulder junction, quartering to from above. Worked fine. I've had people say those won't work at 308 velocities because "they'll loose their petals". That's a quick indication that someone doesn't understand that there's a lot of different ways for a bullet to "work".

 

[FredH]

Correct, but thats not the question. The question is whether calculated total energy ALONE is predictive of the size of a wound. It’s not. The point is that the application is very relevant, while the total amount of calculated energy is far less relevant.

Perhaps before it hits anything. Once it hits something, the interaction of that bullet and whatever it hits becomes much more relevant and complex.

This is the key. While this statement may be correct, its missing the point entirely, because it equates the raw calculated energy with the energy transferred into creating the wound, which are two completely different calculations not based on the same criteria. Its kinetic energy versus impact force. The quoted statement entirely misses the concept of peak impact force as measured on the target. Kinetic energy and impact force are not the same. This is the car crash versus slow controlled stop I referenced earlier—same total energy, but when it comes to the force TIME is a major component of the calculation. The force felt on your body from the seat belt is based on the duration of time that it takes to apply the same amount of energy, which RADICALLY increases or decreases the peak force felt on your body. In this analogy, 60mph is the muzzle velocity, the total energy is the mass of the car combined with the speed, but the different damage to your body is based far more on how long it takes to stop than it is on the total amount if energy, which is analogous to how a bullet upsets. The slow braked stop is like a bullet that penetrates deep with a narrower wound, while the crash is analogous to a fragmenting bullet that loses velocity faster. It is a fact that if you drive a prius into a bridge abutment at 60mph you are likely to be injured, while a slow controlled stop of your f-250 from 90mph is gentle. Its the speed of deceleration that creates a HIGHER peak force in the prius crash despite there being muuch less total energy involved.

I may have some of the “proper” physics terminology wrong here, but the point is that while it does require some amount of energy to create a wound, the total energy available for that is ten steps less relevant than HOW it is applied, because the way it is applied DOES greatly affect the force and the peak force which is what is applied to create a wound.

And, this is even before you get into the damage caused by the fragments themselves.

Yes the absolute volume of the wound is decided by how much the kinetic energy the projectile possesses. Kinetic energy does not decide the shape of a wound channel. It is a predictor of volume nothing else. Mass has it's advantages.

 

[FredH]

Quoting this for emphasis

This is why Wallop is a thing.. Just not how people have been understanding it.

2 bullets of identical weight and speed, but different construction will wallop differently.

Both carry the same energy. If bullet A transfers all energy into the target it wallops more than bullet B that passes through

In another scenario take a 77g TMK at 2675 fps and a 180 TTSX at 2675 both hitting a 200 yd target. There is the high likelihood that the TMK puts more energy on target if the TTSX exits. The TMK will certainly create a larger wound at minimum.

Now if we take a 77g TMK and a 160 TMK at same velocity impacting identical target at 200 yards; the 160 will certainly wallop the target more.. If the target is a deer, I can guesstimate that it will likely loose a limb.

Wallop should be understood as "total bullet energy transferred into the target" and NOT "maximum bullet energy"

Or suppose the TTSX doing what it is designed to do, break bone and give deep penetration by breaking bone on both sides of the animal along with throwing petals along the way (large fragments). Or say a .308 110 gr. CX started fast enough to cause it to throw 6 large petals along it's way? That bullet being larger in it's shape than the average 150 grain cup and core bullet. Back to your "wallop" analogy you are saying any varmint style bullet dumping it's total energy in the firs 4-5" of penetration has more wallop than a properly designed game bullet just because the latter may exit? That is ridiculous. There are other plusses to a pair of holes versus one. I consider the energy needed to make an exit hole well spent.

 

[Bluefish]

Yes the absolute volume of the wound is decided by how much the kinetic energy the projectile possesses. Kinetic energy does not decide the shape of a wound channel. It is a predictor of volume nothing else. Mass has it's advantages.

The only problem with that statement is the animal might be significantly thinner than the potential wound channel. Thus the wound in the animal is smaller than the lower energy round that has less penetration depth. Again it comes back to the bullet and how it works, not the ke at the time of impact. Taken to an extreme a 50 bmg fmj, it will have a long narrow wound channel. It might have more volume if the animal was 10 ft thick, but they are not, so a 223 77tmk has a bigger wound channel in a typical game animal.

 

[Macintosh]

Yes the absolute volume of the wound is decided by how much the kinetic energy the projectile possesses. Kinetic energy does not decide the shape of a wound channel. It is a predictor of volume nothing else. Mass has it's advantages.

@FredH that's simply not correct. KE is involved in determining wound volume, but by itself it cannot predict it.
Remember, it takes one example of something not being true to prove it false. If that were true a FMJ bullet would create the exact same wound channel volume as the same-weight fragmenting bullet fired from the same gun at the same velocity. Same KE, but it did not predict the wound volume, for 3 reasons.
1) much of the energy in one passed through--whatever energy it carried out the other side did not contribute to wound size. IE the APPLICATION is what matters, not the AMOUNT of KE.
2) even if neither passed through, KE alone does not take into account the effect of impact force, which is determined by the rate of deceleration. This is in large part what creates a larger temporary cavity, and, becasue KE doesnt take into account the elasticity of tissue, it doesnt account for increased tearing of tissue on the periphery of a larger temp cavity.
3) It also doesnt take into account fragments tearing tissue that is just below its elastic threshhold, even further increasing wounding.

The reason I and others keep comparing different bullets is becasue when we directly compare different bullets it ilustrates that KE alone is not predictive of wound size. The ONLY time it tracks like that is when you eliminate the variables that ARE more predictive.

Back to your "wallop" analogy you are saying any varmint style bullet dumping it's total energy in the firs 4-5" of penetration has more wallop than a properly designed game bullet just because the latter may exit? That is ridiculous. There are other plusses to a pair of holes versus one. I consider the energy needed to make an exit hole well spent.

This was not directed at me, but it's precisely on point with my #2 here. It's not ridiculous, it's reality--a faster rate of deceleration creates a significantly higher impact force on the target, which carries some additional wounding mechanism. ie it's not energy per se doing 100% of the wounding, it's the RAPID application of that energy that creates a higher PEAK IMPACT FORCE. If you dont believe me, picture yourself bungee jumping...the bungee stretches, cushioning the impact becasue it spreads the application of force over a longer period of time. Now picture the exact same jump but onto a steel cable, ie a sudden stop. Stopping that suddenly has the potential to rupture internal organs, along with other unspeakables. Same amount of kinetic energy as the bungee drop, but vastly different impact transferred to your body. Get it? Note this is a separate topic than whether or not an exit is good.

Regarding point 3, some additional reading:

https://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

“Serious misunderstanding has been generated by looking upon "kinetic energy transfer" from projectile to tissue as a mechanism of injury. In spite of data to the contrary (1, 63), many assume that the amount of "kinetic energy deposit" in the body by a projectile is a measure of damage (2-5, 36, 37, 40). Such opinions ignore the direct interaction of projectile and tissue that is the crux of wound ballistics. Wounds that result in a given amount of "kinetic energy deposit" may differ widely. The nondeforming rifle bullet of the AK-74 (Fig 6) causes a large temporary cavity which can cause marked disruption in some tissue (liver), but has far less effect in others (muscle, lung, bowel wall) (9). A similar temporary cavity such as that produced by the M-16 (Fig 2), stretching tissue that has been riddled by bullet fragments, causes a much larger permanent cavity by detaching tissue segments between the fragment paths. Thus projectile fragmentation can turn the energy used in temporary cavitation into a truly destructive force because it is focused on areas weakened by fragment paths rather than being absorbed evenly by the tissue mass. The synergy between projectile fragmentation and cavitation can greatly increase the damage done by a given amount of kinetic energy”

 

[Stinky Coyote]

5811's 'Terminal Coefficient' (TC) would give you the above book of words in a single number to easily compare to any other bullets TC. No different than we do with BC for comparing to other bullets on inflight.

Two bullets same weight, one eldm, one ttsx, same impact velocity, same impact energy. One goes 16" and finishes with 30% of it's starting sd and the other goes 32" and finishes with 70% of it's starting sd. Assuming you shot a deer lengthwise zee deer took every ft/lb per inch in both cases. All work potential used. What is the TC of each bullet? They will be different. Because like BC you'd come to find preferences that work best for your needs and desires. Like most of us here don't really start getting excited until our bullets are above .5 g1 BC as our goals and desires are to shoot further than mpbr.

If we don't figure out how to get the work curve, the TC (terminal coefficient by 5811), and or, SDRR (section density reduction rate), and or, ETR (energy transfer rate) for all bullets then all you will continue to get is novels of blah blah like all of the 36 pages of this thread (except my posts and just a couple others lol). We get not a single millimetre ahead.

Just because we haven't figured out how to measure velocity and sd changes as it travels through gel yet doesn't mean we won't in the future. 'When', not 'if', it happens I may be gone at this rate, I'll take my bow from the other side. Be nice to see it sooner rather than later lol.

Gotta get the work curve before we can get the TC. Just like we gotta get mv, atmospherics, and time of flight to a 2nd point of bullet travel to get a BC for a bullet. Breakthrough required in instruments that can measure velocity and sd through gel, it will change the game forever on Terminal Ballistics. Until then we will continue to look at the work potential as if trying to get the mph of wind from a picture. What a fun thread. Didn't see guys kept it going. Good work all, team work made the dream work haha, I'm sure we'll do it again and again like the past century and a quarter.

 

[BCDJR]

Why are you comparing that?

Again, it matters how the energy is applied.

Here’s a question you should answer. Which would you rather get shot with?

A solid caliber that doesn’t expand or a highly fragmenting bullet? For these purposes, you can assume the velocity is 2000 feet a second and the copper bullet weighs twice as much as the highly fragmenting bullet.

Seems like CHRIS KYLE shot a 338 Lapua

 

[hereinaz]

Seems like CHRIS KYLE shot a 338 Lapua

But which bullet? A copper solid or highly fragmenting 338?

 

[Macintosh]

5811's 'Terminal Coefficient' (TC) would give you the above book of words in a single number to easily compare to any other bullets TC. No different than we do with BC for comparing to other bullets on inflight.

Two bullets same weight, one eldm, one ttsx, same impact velocity, same impact energy. One goes 16" and finishes with 30% of it's starting sd and the other goes 32" and finishes with 70% of it's starting sd. Assuming you shot a deer lengthwise zee deer took every ft/lb per inch in both cases. All work potential used. What is the TC of each bullet? They will be different. Because like BC you'd come to find preferences that work best for your needs and desires. Like most of us here don't really start getting excited until our bullets are above .5 g1 BC as our goals and desires are to shoot further than mpbr.

If we don't figure out how to get the work curve, the TC (terminal coefficient by 5811), and or, SDRR (section density reduction rate), and or, ETR (energy transfer rate) for all bullets then all you will continue to get is novels of blah blah like all of the 36 pages of this thread (except my posts and just a couple others lol). We get not a single millimetre ahead.

Just because we haven't figured out how to measure velocity and sd changes as it travels through gel yet doesn't mean we won't in the future. 'When', not 'if', it happens I may be gone at this rate, I'll take my bow from the other side. Be nice to see it sooner rather than later lol.

Gotta get the work curve before we can get the TC. Just like we gotta get mv, atmospherics, and time of flight to a 2nd point of bullet travel to get a BC for a bullet. Breakthrough required in instruments that can measure velocity and sd through gel, it will change the game forever on Terminal Ballistics. Until then we will continue to look at the work potential as if trying to get the mph of wind from a picture. What a fun thread. Didn't see guys kept it going. Good work all, team work made the dream work haha, I'm sure we'll do it again and again like the past century and a quarter.

Pot, meet kettle

So your pet “number” to describe a wound is great-ish. A way to objectively communicate depth, max diameter and total volume of a wound channel in a standard medium and at various velocities would indeed be useful for a comparison. But we dont have that. What we do have is actual reality to observe, as well as copious documentation in actual testing that works today, which allows predictions to be made surprisingly accurately. The very same observations that would be used to verify the truth (or not) of your number. Until we have your number I’ll keep on keeping on.

“Il meglio è l'inimico del bene” (Voltaire)

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Seems like CHRIS KYLE shot a 338 Lapua

Yes, he was also shooting people much further away than any of us should be shooting at game. My weapon of choice was a 155mm Excalibur round (we called it “the world’s biggest sniper rifle”), but that doesn’t make it the best choice for hunting.