Retained Velocity vs Retained Energy

[Marble]

I am sure there are people on both sides of the argument. Just curious about real world experience.

My real world experience is that any center fire rifle can kill anything in North America. People's accuracy while hunting is not anywhere near what their bench accuracy is. They shoot more out of excitement than accuracy. I would rather have a bigger bullet, more energy with better trajectory for when shit happens. And if you are hunting shit will happen. Even under the best conditions.

There is more thought put into what people will use, rather than how to use it.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be.

This was hotly debated in the last year here with a lot of theory and ballistics on both sides.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Marble]

Is Hydrostatic Shock Real?

In a 1942 edition of Popular Mechanics, an article titled “Super Speed Bullets Knock ‘Em Dead” describes a new wunderkind cartridge that launches a .22-caliber projectile an astounding 5,400 feet per second. The bullet maintains a flat trajectory out to 400 yards, but its real benefit—something...

www.themeateater.com

I thought this was an interesting article. Doesn't solve the debate but does provide some info.

I think back to war situations where explosions happen and rip people inyo multiple parts. Doctors use it in surgery to break up tissue, kidney stones etc. So I don't know for sure.

My anecdotal evidence is there is an affect. But it doesn't change the cartridges I shoot or the placement of my shots.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Rooggvc]

This has definitely opened up some new ways of thinking. I was pretty set on a 300 WSM slinging 200 grain bullets. I was really focused on that 1500 ft-lb threshold and maximizing the distance I could maintain that 1500 ft-lbs to.

However if I focus on using something like the 162 ELD-M, I could shoot it out of a 7mm-08. That round would retain the velocity needed to perform to distances much farther then I would shoot things. I was all “foot-lb” minimums when I was looking at the 300 WSM. But if I think in terms of minimum velocity needed to reliably allow a given bullet to function, that little 7mm-08 seems more then adequate.

 

[Billinsd]

What are your guys thoughts? Is velocity or energy more important?

Velocity is critical and here is why. What's the minimum velocity as specified by the bullet manufacturer for proper bullet expansion. I shoot 7mm Rem Mag 160 grain accubond bullets and the minimum velocity for proper bullet expansion is 1,800 fps. My 7mm shot accubonds drop to 1,800 fps at about 750 yards. That's my max bullet expansion rainge, what's the energy at that range? Not critical and not important. That's it. If I place the bullet in the vitals out to 750 yards the bull elk or mule deer is dead. If you make a poor shot, sure more energy will help and energy is a good thing, it's just not critical unless you are defending yourself.

 

[Billinsd]

Penetration is still most important, even with soft nose bullets, however you achieve it.

No, proper bullet expansion is the most critical. Penetration is also critical, but a non issue with proper expansion, which ensures proper penetration with a modern hunting bullet like nosler accubonds. Of course maximum expansion at higher velocity is better than minimum expansion velocity. Minimum expansion is fine with good placement.

 

[Billinsd]

Only if the designs are identical, and not designed to shed weight at a high rate (Berger, TMK, ELD-M). A Barnes will always outdo a Nosler Partition of the same starting weight, caliber, velocity and SD.

Which Barnes bullet? Explain this to me? Thanks Bill

 

[Billinsd]

Is Hydrostatic Shock Real?

In a 1942 edition of Popular Mechanics, an article titled “Super Speed Bullets Knock ‘Em Dead” describes a new wunderkind cartridge that launches a .22-caliber projectile an astounding 5,400 feet per second. The bullet maintains a flat trajectory out to 400 yards, but its real benefit—something...

www.themeateater.com

I thought this was an interesting article. Doesn't solve the debate but does provide some info.

I think back to war situations where explosions happen and rip people inyo multiple parts. Doctors use it in surgery to break up tissue, kidney stones etc. So I don't know for sure.

My anecdotal evidence is there is an affect. But it doesn't change the cartridges I shoot or the placement of my shots.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Big game hunting bullets aren't designed to kill by hydrostatic shock that I'm aware of, not Nosler. Of course hydrostatic shock is real and causes damage, however, it is the bullet mushrooming and staying in tact that big game bullets are designed for and most critical.

 

[Wapiti1]

Which Barnes bullet? Explain this to me? Thanks Bill

Any of their mono-metals will out penetrate a similar Nosler Partition launched at the same velocity. The Barnes sheds little to no weight, while the Nosler loses the non-bonded lead portion. Granted, you can't make a perfect comparison due to density differences in lead core verse copper mono, but the concept is still valid.

I probably should have used a Swift A-frame verse Nosler Partition as my comparison so you have an apples to apples SD.

My point is that starting sectional density doesn't mean much in actual penetration performance because other things happen. Expanded diameter, bullet construction and weight loss end up dictating the actual penetration of the bullet.

Jeremy

 

[Billinsd]

Any of their mono-metals will out penetrate a similar Nosler Partition launched at the same velocity. The Barnes sheds little to no weight, while the Nosler loses the non-bonded lead portion. Granted, you can't make a perfect comparison due to density differences in lead core verse copper mono, but the concept is still valid.

I probably should have used a Swift A-frame verse Nosler Partition as my comparison so you have an apples to apples SD.

My point is that starting sectional density doesn't mean much in actual penetration performance because other things happen. Expanded diameter, bullet construction and weight loss end up dictating the actual penetration of the bullet.

Jeremy

Barnes bullets are EXCELLENT BULLETS!!!

 

[rifletuner]

There are way too many variables that come into play to declare that a given bullet or formula is the answer.

Monolithics have their place. Fragmenting bullets have their place. Solid bullets have their place. Penetration is important, albeit not as important as some believe. Shot placement is critical, though there are variables with this also. Any bullet can be wildly successful or a dismal failure, depending on the circumstances.

Short answer is that people on the internet get an erection when they hear others parroting their views. But its rarely as straightforward as they like to make out. And their arguments rarely matter as much as they think they do.

 

[Crowmangler]

You should get some of those 9mm bullets that Biden uses ... you know, the ones that blow the lungs out of the body

 

[Marble]

Being the master of your tool is the most important thing. Knowing which tool to use is subjective and will be forever.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Rooggvc]

I spent a great deal of time combing through this site tonight. I have come to the conclusion I am going to do the following.

1. Run frangible heavy for caliber bullets (ELD-M, TMK, Berger).
2. Propel them at moderate velocities (approx. 2800 fps or less).
3. Worry about the given projectiles minimum expansion velocity rather then minimum ft/lbs of energy.

From everything I have read tonight it seems like a solid formula for success.

Hopefully the next few years I can get some of my own real world experience to add to all of this I have read tonight.

 

[Rich M]

Velocity = Energy in a bullet.