I'd like to point out that you listed the two constituent ingredients of energy (mass and velocity) as factors, then said energy isn't a factor.
Lol, not the best at explaining what I'm saying today. It's very correct the larger projectile all else has equal has more energy. But that number is literally such a small contributing factor to what kills animals (if it is at all) and has been misrepresented/misunderstood for a very long time.
Apparently you know more than the fbi ballistic experts....
The problem with energy is that it doesnt give the whole story. It does not give any indication as to what a particular bullet does in tissue. A 30 cal 220 FMJ can impact a deer at a given range and velocity with a ton of “energy” but do little damage to tissue. A 90 grain eldx 6mm bullet could impact the same deer at the same distance with way less energy but damage internal tissue exponentially more. These are all just generalities but you get the point. There is the rabbit hole lol. Now back to how great the 270 wsm is.
Was there a time when people believed that energy did tell the whole story?
I will say that when discussing bullets, we should refer to it energy potential and not energy. My reasoning I that for it to be called energy, there has to be work done. If there is no work done, then the energy transfer is minimal such as in a bullet that does not fragment or mushroom. Technically, a bullet that exits the body of an animal has not used all of its energy potential so it had wasted potential energy. That wasted potential energy could be caused by shot placement or by bullet design. Some bullets use all of their energy potential before they penetrate deep enough to effect the CNS or the vital organs. This can cause excessive blood shot meat or minimal organ damage. Energy potential shows a bullets ability to do work if the bullet design allows the work to happen (expanding type bullet) and the bullet placement is in an area where work can be done.
Yep. Energy is like charge to a battery. Does not do anything, but is directly proportional to the amount of work a bullet can do. As a bullet penetrates it loses velocity and the energy is converted to work done on the tissue (tearing and moving). A key thing people miss is that for penetration, a smaller diameter bullet uses less energy to penetrate to similar depths as a larger bullet (theoretically a bullet with 2x surface area will use 2x the energy, but not that straight forward). This is because drag (which slows the bullet) is proportional to surface area. Of course less tissue will be crushed/destroyed along the path. Since adequate penetration is a must to kill and a wider wound may not be the smaller wound may not make a difference. I think this is techical explanation on why people here think energy is some made up hoopla by fudds. Here is the other thing people don’t understand is that more energy increases wound volume not wound diameter. For ex, a 2x wider wound has destroyed 4x the amount of tissue. So a wound .25” or .5” wider may be a significant increase in tissue damage though you can hardly tell the difference just looking at how much wider a wound is. Again, whether it makes a difference or not depends on lot of things that someone with medical background would be better to comment. Apologize to OP, I couldn’t help posting on energy. If you guys want to discuss more start a different topic. I always get swarmed with memes or boos when I post anything “sciencey” about this type of stuff
I'd add that it's only truly a short action if you only shoot factory ammo.
Yep. Just like the 6.5 PRC is kind of a short action. But I think the 6.5PRC is a perfect fit for the tikka action.
To get back to our comparisons using data...Yep. Energy is like charge to a battery. Does not do anything, but is directly proportional to the amount of work a bullet can do. As a bullet penetrates it loses velocity and the energy is converted to work done on the tissue (tearing and moving). A key thing people miss is that for penetration, a smaller diameter bullet uses less energy to penetrate to similar depths as a larger bullet (theoretically a bullet with 2x surface area will use 2x the energy, but not that straight forward). This is because drag (which slows the bullet) is proportional to surface area. Of course less tissue will be crushed/destroyed along the path. Since adequate penetration is a must to kill and a wider wound may not be the smaller wound may not make a difference. I think this is techical explanation on why people here think energy is some made up hoopla by fudds. Here is the other thing people don’t understand is that more energy increases wound volume not wound diameter. For ex, a 2x wider wound has destroyed 4x the amount of tissue. So a wound .25” or .5” wider may be a significant increase in tissue damage though you can hardly tell the difference just looking at how much wider a wound is. Again, whether it makes a difference or not depends on lot of things that someone with medical background would be better to comment. Apologize to OP, I couldn’t help posting on energy. If you guys want to discuss more start a different topic. I always get swarmed with memes or boos when I post anything “sciencey” about this type of stuff
Lou
Nothing new?
You’re arguing aerodynamics and that has nothing to do with what happens when it impacts the animal, only stretching out the distance of the impact. Two different topics altogether. I think aerodynamic bullets are awesome, but that doesn’t automatically make the designs better at killing things.
