quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
I think 'ol JWP must have gone to ITT Tech.
Peter

Ballistics Pendulum

Did those guys go to the same institute?

Fact is that Duncan MacPhearson has the only ballistic math model that has PROVEN to be accurate 100 percent of the time in accurately predicting the penetration and size of the wound channel in Ballistics Media, No other person has a model that works 100 percent of the time, seems rather clear as to whom knows what they are talking about


Peter, if you have a many Physics classes as you claim, Isure that you know that energy is not conserved in an inelastic collision. Most of the enrgy is transformed into thermal energy and some goes to sound, etc.

"to say that energy is not conserved is just false. heat is a form of energy!"

"Most of the enrgy is transformed into thermal energy and some goes to sound, etc."


JWP I do not intend to continue this ludicrous topic! Read your own post!
Peter

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
"to say that energy is not conserved is just false. heat is a form of energy!"

"Most of the enrgy is transformed into thermal energy and some goes to sound, etc."


JWP I do not intend to continue this ludicrous topic! Read your own post!
Peter

You need to learn to read an comprehend, try again






Ballistics Pendulum

quote:

Peter, if you have a many Physics classes as you claim, Isure that you know that energy is not conserved in an inelastic collision. Most of the enrgy is transformed into thermal energy and some goes to sound, etc.

depends on the media, certain media will dissipate energy as heat and some will transmit a higher percentage of the energy as a force, or via momentum. there is the conservation of energy, this is a law of physics. the question is that of those who don't quantify collisions correctly and persist either purely elastic or inelastic, these NEVER exist. that is also why confusion over scalar and vector forces remains present in anyone of these wounding theories, and why no consensus is present, it varies with the wind.

The Ballistic Pendulum
Objective: After you finish this lab you should know:

The difference between elastic and inelastic collisions.
Which conservation laws apply to each type of collision.
Two ways to find the initial velocity of a projectile.
Introduction

A collision between two bodies can be elastic or inelastic. In an elastic collision the two bodies rebound with no loss of kinetic energy. In an inelastic collision one or both bodies can be deformed, or they can stick together. Either of these processes absorbs some of the systems kinetic energy. The system can also dissipate kinetic energy in producing sound or heat. Since there are no external forces acting on the system at the time of the collision, linear momentum must be conserved in both cases.




In this lab you will study an inelastic collision using a Blackwood ballistic pendulum. The colliding bodies are a small metal ball, which is fired from a spring loaded gun, and a metal receptacle, or catcher. The receptacle is also the bob of a simple pendulum. Initially the pendulum is at rest. When the gun fires, the ball collides with the pendulum and is trapped in the catcher which then starts to swing. A ratchet and pawl system catches the pendulum at the height of its swing.

The best way to understand this experiment is to divide it into three separate events. First, the gun fires and the ball of mass m travels horizontally with initial velocity U In the absence of external forces, the horizontal component of its velocity will not change. The horizontal component of the ball's initial linear momentum is:


(1)

In the second event, the ball collides with the "catcher" of mass M and is trapped by the spring. The system loses kinetic energy in the deformation of the spring and the creation of sound. Linear momentum, however, must be conserved. The pendulum, of mass (M + m), moves with a new horizontal velocity, V. The momentum of the system is now:


(2)

Since the two momenta are equal, we can solve for U:


(3)

Finally, the system acts like a simple pendulum. It moves upward and is caught by the ratchet at the highest part of its swing. The ratchet and pawl are designed to exert negligible force on the pendulum while it is moving upward, so mechanical energy is conserved. This means that the pendulum's kinetic energy at the bottom of its swing must equal its potential energy at the top of its swing. The change in height, h, of the center of mass can be easily measured. We can then solve for V:


(4)

Therefore:


(5)

Substitute this value for V into equation 3:


(6)


There is a different, more direct way to measure the initial velocity of the ball. We can fire the gun horizontally from a known height and measure its range, R. The velocity, U, is given by:


(7)

where T is the time of flight. We can solve for the time of flight because the ball's horizontal and vertical motion are independent. As it moves horizontally, the ball also falls because of the influence of gravity. If the ball drops a distance Y:


(8)

solve for U:


(9)

Procedure

Use MKS units. Measure masses to 0.001 kg. Measure lengths to 0.001 m.

NEVER POINT THE GUN AT ANYONE !!!

Your instructor will show you how to load and fire the gun. Occasionally the ball will miss the catcher; therefore do not fire it if anyone is within range of the ball.

Be careful when you remove the ball from the catcher; push the spring inward to release the ball. The spring will break if you pull it backwards.

Part I

1. Unscrew the set screw that holds the pendulum at the top of the apparatus. Measure the mass of the ball (m) and of the ball and pendulum together (M + m). Reassemble the apparatus. Make sure that the pendulum can swing freely with a minimum of side-to-side motion.

2. Fire the gun and record the number of the notch in which the pendulum comes to rest. Repeat twice. If the notch numbers vary greatly, or if you have other problems, consult your instructor.

3. While the pendulum is hanging freely, measure the height of the center of mass marker from the base of the apparatus.

4. Average the notch numbers and raise the pendulum to that notch. Measure the height of the center of mass marker from the base of the apparatus. The difference between the two heights is h.

5. Use equation 6 to find the initial velocity of the ball.

Part II

6. Leave the pendulum raised. Position the apparatus near the end of the table so that it is aimed out across the floor with a range of about three meters. Shoot the ball and note where it hits the floor. Make sure that the gun does not move. Use masking tape to secure a piece of cork pad with a carbon set on it to the floor where the ball landed.

7. Fire the ball three more times or until you have three marks on the carbon set.

8. Put the gun back on the gun rod but do not cock it. Measure the distance from the bottom of the ball to the floor. This is Y. Also, measure the horizontal distance from the point on the floor directly below the ball to the center of the marks on the carbon set. This distance is R.

9. Use equation 9 to find U. Find the percent difference between the two values for U.

Questions

1. Only a fraction, F, of the ball's kinetic energy is transferred to the ball and catcher during the collision:


(10)

With a bit of algebra you can show that:


(11)

What was the fraction of kinetic energy transferred during the collision?

2. Why was the distance Y measured from the bottom of the ball rather than the center of mass?

3. In part II, if the velocity of the ball had been doubled due to a stronger gun spring, how would the ball's time of flight have changed?

4. Which method of finding the velocity of the ball do you think was more accurate? Explain why.

The Ballistic Pendulum

Part I

mass of ball (m) __________

mass of ball and catcher (m + M) __________

notch 1 _____ notch 2 _____ notch 3 _____

average notch number _____

resting center of mass height _______________

raised center of mass heightÊ_______________

change in height __________

U = _______________

Part II

Y = _______________

R = _______________

U = _______________

% difference = _______________


Blackwood Ballistics Pendulum

quote:

Originally posted by tradmark:

quote:

Peter, if you have a many Physics classes as you claim, Isure that you know that energy is not conserved in an inelastic collision. Most of the enrgy is transformed into thermal energy and some goes to sound, etc.

depends on the media, certain media will dissipate energy as heat and some will transmit a higher percentage of the energy as a force, or via momentum. there is the conservation of energy, this is a law of physics. the question is that of those who don't quantify collisions correctly and persist either purely elastic or inelastic, these NEVER exist. that is also why confusion over scalar and vector forces remains present in anyone of these wounding theories, and why no consensus is present, it varies with the wind.

Show me a reference that claims "conservation of energy" in an inelastic collision. Of course you can't because science would be proven wrong and we all know that is not the case.

You and Peter are confusing the fact that ENERGY IS NEVER LOST with energy is not conserved in an inelastic collision. Energy is conserved in an elastic collision and momentum is conservered in ALL COLLISIONS, the type of media is irrelevant.

is it energy or momentum? it not entirely either.

in this experiment, you take a given bullet made of brass with the exact same dimensions and nose profile, then you take another bullet and make it from brass and add a balanced tungsten core, shoot them through ballistic gel at the exact same speed. which one penetrates further and which one imparts a larger wound channel if there's an advantage either way. obviously the heavier one penetrates further, but not much difference in wound channel diameter. in this comparison KE and momentum are both increased by having a heavier projectile of the same dimensions, the heavier one will penetrate further but the wound channel does not appreciably change much. now take the lighter bullet and impart a significantly greater velocity, penetration increases some but wound channel increases. was it the momentum or was it the KE, which is it? it's been shown that the results are not completely described well by either alone. it's the type of work done and how it's modified by either nose shape, velocity, diameter, etc.........and KE and momentum which are not completely seperate from each other.


which is why the question will never be concrete on which one kills better, a 338 or 300 weatherby. it will rage on forever the whole time both working perfectly adequately for any reasonable task they are asked to perform as long as the bullet itself is up to the task.

Show me a reference that claims "conservation of energy" in an inelastic collision. Of course yoiu can't because science would be proven wrong and we all know that is notthe case

never said that............let me restate, the definition of an inelastic collision never means that NO kinetic energy is imparted, some is always imparted, the media the collision and the type of objects colliding determine how much kinetic energy is imparted.

the standard pool ball collision example of conservation of momentum is never a pure inelastic collision which would mean 100% of all momentum is conserved and it is not. some objects have a net gain of energy b/w them when they collide but this is on the subatomic level.



to say KE describes how effective a bullet will perform is obviously incorrect and to rely on it solely is pure folly, but to say it has NOTHING to do with it is just as equally wrong. that is where i disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by tradmark:
Show me a reference that claims "conservation of energy" in an inelastic collision. Of course yoiu can't because science would be proven wrong and we all know that is notthe case

never said that............let me restate, the definition of an inelastic collision never means that NO kinetic energy is imparted, some is always imparted, the media the collision and the type of objects colliding determine how much kinetic energy is imparted.

the standard pool ball collision example of conservation of momentum is never a pure inelastic collision which would mean 100% of all momentum is conserved and it is not. some objects have a net gain of energy b/w them when they collide but this is on the subatomic level.



to say KE describes how effective a bullet will perform is obviously incorrect and to rely on it solely is pure folly, but to say it has NOTHING to do with it is just as equally wrong. that is where i disagree.

You are correct that there is a small amount of energy transfer in an inelastic collison, but the amount is untraceable and not important.

If you have MacPherson's book, he makes this very clear.

To properly predict wound trauma incapacitation, no simple formula will work
accurately.


Obviously if one has no energy, then one has no motion of mass, so in this regard it is important, but it is not the mechanisum that determines wound trauma incapacitation.

i understand his book well, but i don't think it's completely absolutely 100% accurate and i'm not quite you and i got exactly the same thing out of his book, in fact it's not spoonfed facts and so many people come to slightly different opinions on the exact conclusion which is why you can go to a trauma surgery conference and have 5 different surgeons making presentations and there will be 5 slightly different opinions.

momentum doesn't predict it exactly either. not in the least.

back to my examples above, take a 3rd experiement and slow the heavier but identically shaped projectile to where it has less energy but more momentum and you will find you will see a difference in wound channel in favor of the projectile with higher velocity, even if it doesn't, in the end, penetrate further. whether velocity, nose profile, expansion profile, or diameter are used to affect the type of work done in the system i.e. creating the wound channel, all affect the outcome, all are valid, and any one single variable can be manipulated to increase the lethality of a given round. it's just that the due to bullet failures in the past the high velocity group got a bad bad name and justifiably so, new projectiles have somewhat changed this and so really both camps have some validity.

quote:

Originally posted by tradmark:
i understand his book well, but i don't think it's completely absolutely 100% accurate and i'm not quite you and i got exactly the same thing out of his book, in fact it's not spoonfed facts and so many people come to slightly different opinions on the exact conclusion which is why you can go to a trauma surgery conference and have 5 different surgeons making presentations and there will be 5 slightly different opinions.

momentum doesn't predict it exactly either. not in the least.

SInce MacPhearson's Model HAS BEEN PROVEN 100% accurate, then how can you claim it to not be accurate?

I never said that momentum predicted the size and depth of the wound channel. I sad that the amount of direct applied force, theamount of momentum transfered and the amount of hydraulic pressure along with frontal area is what determines the wound channel and penetration


You claim that there is 5 different opinion, but only 1 has been proven to be correct, then it's a no brainer to know that the proven one is the only correct one, duh

This gets real silly.
Take your .44 with a given boolit at 1350 fps, make it hard cast. Shoot a deer at less then 50 yards behind the shoulder to avoid bone. There will be a huge blood trail and the deer might make 30 yards.
Now do the same at 120 yards. See any difference? How large will the blood trail be? How far can the deer go?
Set up gallon jugs of water from 10 yards to as far as one can be hit. You will blow up the closer ones and as distance increases damage decreases until you just poke a hole through one or stop the boolit in the jug.
Loss of velocity and energy seems to cause less damage doesn't it?
Energy is needed, no disputing that fact. You might be able to shoot the .44 far enough to where it just bounces off the deer, like shooting near straight up.
I challenge anyone to make the .44 kill the same at 500 yards as it does at 10 yards.
Long range shots require a much higher muzzle velocity and maybe a heavier boolit to retain energy. This can be a trade off. A .58 Minie' ball started slow has devastation at long range.
The energy a boolit has must be put to work at the velocity, distance and size of the animal or it will fail.
All of the book figures and energy figures can not be read by animals and to depend on them as gospel will not make a hunter.
If you do not believe in energy applied, you should be shooting moose with a slingshot. Will a 45 gr bullet at 4100 fps do better?
This book junk is a waste. I prefer to see the insides of a dead animal. I never found a use to hang deer from a rope to see how far it swings!

Actually, the book is very good. You should read it.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
How's the recovery going, Robert?

Hi Whit,

Thank you for asking. It's going well, or certainly well enough. The forearm is lightly weightbearing (5# or less) but is pain free. So that means it's working and my mobility in the wrist and arm is about 80%. The docs are sure I'll make a 100% arm recovery.

My ribs on the other hand...I really busted up 4 ribs in 6 places and did a lot of trauma to my right lung.



The good news is that this is the xray I had this Monday. In 2.5 weeks I've been able to build back up my right lung nicely as my body has absorbed the fluid that was in my chest.



So, while I've been down and out, I've had the chance to get a trigger job on the .41 mag and start practicing dry-firing left handed.

Still can't thumb back the hammer on my revolvers with my right thumb. It's very, very weak but coming back a little more each day.

That's great news, Robert! Just be patient and don't rush the process.

quote:

and the amount of hydraulic pressure along with frontal area is what determines the wound channel and penetration

and this is where you're just plain wrong jwp, you say energy has nothing to do with it, but then talk about hydraulic pressure. that is KE of the bullet being transferred right there, hydraulic pressure is just one of the ways KE is transferred, this is something i've bee saying. this is where the shutdown happens, i never said the only thing, never said how much but it is one of the ways it's transferred, just different terms are used.


one thing macpherson has made a career on and is brilliant at is making math equations on an observation. he did it as a rocket scientist and he's done it well on ballistic gel. that said, there's been alot of ballistic trauma evidence showing distant neuro damage that is not explained by his model. there's many observations many of us have made in surgeries that are not explained by his model despite it's accuracy in ballistic gel. that said, several opinions and models abound and despite your rhetoric his is not 100% accurate as to real trauma surgery and wounding seen in the real world despite it's accuracy in ballistic gel

rnovi, i hope you continued healing in your recovery.

rnovi,

Don't have all the details, but the fact remains, I wish you the very best in your recover. Sounds like you had a pretty tough time of it.

As for the original question....I think I will just use what I have going for the time being and see how it does. Here are a couple of groups at 25yds, from yesterday,





The top load is running right around 1450fps, and the other is just bumping over 1500fps. These were both with air cooled WW.

quote:

Originally posted by Mke / Tx:
rnovi,

Don't have all the details, but the fact remains, I wish you the very best in your recover. Sounds like you had a pretty tough time of it.

Thanks for the kind words. It's on in retrospect that I can say "that was a good hit". It's actually quite embarrassing - I spend six days a year racing motorcycles at 130+ mph...

The reality was that I had a whopping 25mph motorcycle accident in a parking lot. Basically, a guy stopped in front of me and I couldn't get out of the way in time. A buddy of mine crashed with me at the same time. For the record we were both geared up head to toe.

I broke 7 bones in 10 places, got the whole Life Flight experience, spent days in ICU, etc.

My buddy sprained his pinky.

Such is life. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't. Regardless, I'm healing well and life is good.

PS: Let's get back to shooting! I'm just drooling waiting to get back out to the range...

I had a Honda ST1100 once. Got it up to 90 mph and got scared!
Peter.

Robert, glad to hear that your recovery is going well. Here's to a full and speedy recovery!

quote:

Originally posted by tradmark:

quote:

and the amount of hydraulic pressure along with frontal area is what determines the wound channel and penetration

and this is where you're just plain wrong jwp, you say energy has nothing to do with it, but then talk about hydraulic pressure. that is KE of the bullet being transferred right there, hydraulic pressure is just one of the ways KE is transferred, this is something i've bee saying. this is where the shutdown happens, i never said the only thing, never said how much but it is one of the ways it's transferred, just different terms are used.


one thing macpherson has made a career on and is brilliant at is making math equations on an observation. he did it as a rocket scientist and he's done it well on ballistic gel. that said, there's been alot of ballistic trauma evidence showing distant neuro damage that is not explained by his model. there's many observations many of us have made in surgeries that are not explained by his model despite it's accuracy in ballistic gel. that said, several opinions and models abound and despite your rhetoric his is not 100% accurate as to real trauma surgery and wounding seen in the real world despite it's accuracy in ballistic gel

You claim to have this book,



But your above statement indicates that you haven't read it.

Hydraulic pressure is a function of velocity. The round with the highest velocity will produce the most hydraulic pressure even if it has less energy according to MacPhearson, Dr. Fackler, etc. They are the leading experts in the field, so forgive me if I take thier findings as fact, instead of your beliefs.

quote:

Posted 21 July 2011 18:21 Hide Post
Actually, the book is very good. You should read it.

No need, I see what happens in the field. You are in love with the velocity we load, expended energy, hydraulic pressure, internal damage, etc.
I have offered to load your ammo to 700 fps but you refuse. Do you think your boolit will work at 100 FPS? What would the boolit do fastened to an arrow at 240 fps?
No book figures are ever needed and math is a waste of time.
Penetration alone is not the answer. You NEED energy applied. Too much velocity means energy is expended PAST the animal if boolits do not expand and slow inside. A rifle with 5000# of muzzle energy is useless if it does not put required energy inside the animal yet the wrong bullet will blow the animal to red mist or fail completely to stop it.
I can also make your boolits dead soft with hollow points and I am sure you would hate me for it. These have a place but not at the velocities we shoot.
I don't understand how you agree with me and also dispute me? What do you want? I can load them for you but if you fail to stop a little deer, don't look cross eyed at me.

Why does shooting humans enter into these discussions? We are hunters. Animals are different. Shots are double lung or both shoulders.
Nerve shots put anything down.

Nonsense. I have no love affair with velocity (oh and my .500 Linebaugh only runs 1,100 fps at the muzzle). I don't agree with half-baked theories that fly in the face of fact. There is nothing magical about 1,350, and 1,600 fps is not too fast.

I don't agree that you need a little bit of expansion at certain velocities -- particularly not with the calibers we are shooting. Your .475 bullet is a great design with a good nose profile -- that is why it works, not because it is running 1,350 at the muzzle.

You need to go back and read what I posted, I don't think you quite understood it.

I am sure if I could make your hard boolits too fast you would find failure on smaller animals. Only larger animals would slow the boolits in passage to allow them to work.

Huh??

How's that beer coming along? When will it be ready? It's really hot -- beer weather!

quote:

Hydraulic pressure is a function of velocity. The round with the highest velocity will produce the most hydraulic pressure even if it has less energy according to MacPhearson, Dr. Fackler, etc. They are the leading experts in the field, so forgive me if I take thier findings as fact, instead of your beliefs.

well, velocity is a component of what makes up kinetic energy which is why they are not seperable, maybe this is why there's many things you don't understand in the book.


there's several ballisticians that have had very concrete findings that did not agree with fackler etc., let me repharse, did not completely agree with fackler, i for one don't care about what you choose to believe just the spread of misinformation to others.

quote:

well, velocity is a component of what makes up kinetic energy which is why they are not seperable, maybe this is why there's many things you don't understand in the book.


there's several ballisticians that have had very concrete findings that did not agree with fackler etc., let me repharse, did not completely agree with fackler, i for one don't care about what you choose to believe just the spread of misinformation to others.

I have to agree because when and where energy is applied in each size animal is more important the how much there is to start with.
The real world is the animal on the ground
I hate when someone says boolit placement or central nervous hits. Those can be made with rifles from a rest, not a revolver off hand. Those that profess those kinds of hits shoot at standing animals at 10 yards. I really like the guy that says to shoot deer in the head, Are deer held in a cattle cage so the muzzle is against the forehead? Those that claim those shots are happy with a 4" group at 25 yards.
As good as our guns shoot and with as much practice as we get, when I tell you I shoot deer in the head, you are free to laugh and toss me from this site because I would be lying to you. You have to be close, very close. Then a twitch at the trigger means a badly wounded animal. I have seen deer with jaws shot off. They starve to death.
Shooting at deer's head with a revolver shows no respect for the animal but there are a few that quick draw and fan the revolver to shoot a deer in the brain at 50 yards.

So what about the beer, Jim??

mike/tx -- great groups btw, that's some good shooting.

But what about the beer??

OK, I will go put the tap on it. It really needs to age more but I will let you know.

quote:

Originally posted by tradmark:
well, velocity is a component of what makes up kinetic energy which is why they are not seperable, maybe this is why there's many things you don't understand in the book.


there's several ballisticians that have had very concrete findings that did not agree with fackler etc., let me repharse, did not completely agree with fackler, i for one don't care about what you choose to believe just the spread of misinformation to others.

Duncan MacPherson is very clear about what causes hydraulic pressure, and it's velocity. A ground squirrel will get blown to pieces by a .22-250, but not by a .458 Lott despite considerably more muzzle energy. You can believe what you want, but you are the one spreading misinformation. You clearly don't comprehend the content of this book.

Over & out

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
OK, I will go put the tap on it. It really needs to age more but I will let you know.

I look forward to trying it!

OK Gents, let me ask a couple of simple questions...

Lets take a 44 Mag with a 240gr Hard cast bullet. IS there any difference in "actual killing" power between this bullet at 1200fps and say 1400fps???

Then take say, the 475 Linebaugh, with a 420gr hard cast bullet at again 1200fps vs 1400fps???

Assume you are using an ironsighted revolver at distances of 100 yards and less.

Now I do know the only difference between a 30/30 and a 300 Magnum is basically velocity...

But with a handgun, with lead bullets and iron sights at handgun ranges, how much difference does it make???

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
OK Gents, let me ask a couple of simple questions...

Lets take a 44 Mag with a 240gr Hard cast bullet. IS there any difference in "actual killing" power between this bullet at 1200fps and say 1400fps???

Then take say, the 475 Linebaugh, with a 420gr hard cast bullet at again 1200fps vs 1400fps???

Assume you are using an ironsighted revolver at distances of 100 yards and less.

Now I do know the only difference between a 30/30 and a 300 Magnum is basically velocity...

But with a handgun, with lead bullets and iron sights at handgun ranges, how much difference does it make???

1200 FPS to 1400 FPS makes little difference IMHO & experience. I killed this Carribou with a 310 grain LFN at 1240 FPS from a 45 Colt at an estimated 150 yards and the bullet exited and did an excllent job of putting the slap down on Mr. bou




This Big Bull was taken with a 525 grain WLFN at 1,100 FPS from a 500 Linebaugh the bullet exited and blood flowed from both the exit and the entrance holes

quote:

OK Gents, let me ask a couple of simple questions...

Lets take a 44 Mag with a 240gr Hard cast bullet. IS there any difference in "actual killing" power between this bullet at 1200fps and say 1400fps???

Then take say, the 475 Linebaugh, with a 420gr hard cast bullet at again 1200fps vs 1400fps???

Assume you are using an ironsighted revolver at distances of 100 yards and less.

Now I do know the only difference between a 30/30 and a 300 Magnum is basically velocity...

But with a handgun, with lead bullets and iron sights at handgun ranges, how much difference does it make???

Not much at all. A few 100 fps is not critical. Get too slow or too fast and it will only be the boolit or bullet you choose.
Look at it this way. Shoot a whole magazine of hard, pointy bullets through a man with a 9mm and he might still shoot you. Does that make the nine bad? No, it was the bullet.
Shoot a deer with armor piercing rounds and lose it. Was it the gun? NO, it was the bullet.
We shoot deer with hard boolits and just found around 1350 fps is where they work best. The boolits need a decent meplat.
If velocity gets too far either side, too slow or too fast, then just an alloy change is all that is needed.
The revolver is deadly over a wide range but boolits need to match your velocity. It can be as simple as air cooled compared to water dropped or some pure lead added to WW metal.
That is why book figures fail, they do not take into account boolit alloys or bullet construction.
Just where and when does your bullet apply the needed energy and tissue destruction in the size animal you are shooting?
This argument will never end because the muzzle energy figures you get from a book will never tell you what your bullet actually does.
When you see a pure round ball from a .45 muzzle loader dump animals fast while you can lose one with a .454 and hard cast, only then will you see the difference. Yes the .454 has more energy, APPLIED WRONG! That is why the .454 works better with a jacketed bullet. Slow it to just under 1400 fps with a hard boolit and it then will work fine.
You see, everyone thinks one bullet will work from a handgun but they will always use different bullets from a rifle depending on the game hunted. Revolvers are sprayed with pixie dust and work from 700 fps to 1800 fps with the same bullets.