Wound channels can be calculated if one knows enough of the science. The book by Duncan McPhearson clearly demonstrates this fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:
Firstly, I repeat, ad nauseam, wound channel has absolutely no bearing on ballistics, whether terminal ballistics or not.

Wound channel is absolutely relevant to terminal ballistics. Where are you coming from on this?

Ok, let me try a different tack here.

Does the wound channel effect the ballistics, or does the ballistic affect the wound channel? Which way does the causality flow?

I made a comment pertaining to the latter – ballistics are not determined by wound channel. You and another poster keep on responding as if I my comment was the former.

Am I to understand you cannot tell the difference? I think you can, and stating I made the former is disingenuous.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by Pa.Frank:
Hi Paul! I see you have joined this forum I recommended to you, and are enjoying the discussions!

For those of you that don't know Paul, he really is a nice guy, knows what he's talking about, most of the time, isn't afraid to admit when he's wrong, and he really enjoys a "healthy" discussion!

Welcome buddy!

Yet he has come here and called one of the most experienced handgun hunters I know, and a longtime member here a liar. I'm not okay with that to be honest. Newsflash: there are others here who "know what they're talking about" as well and have been at this racket a long time.

I called him out as a liar because that is what he is. If you change somebody's word into something other that what he stated, you are a liar. And yes, seems even experienced hand gunners can be liars.

Mir there is a liar to be called out here all you need to do is look in the mirror. We all know what you said and the BS part of what you said.

Please show me where I lied, but please be so kind to quote verbatim and keep within context. You know, show the same courtesy I did with my quotes.

I'll be the first to apologize for bearing false witness.

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:
Firstly, I repeat, ad nauseam, wound channel has absolutely no bearing on ballistics, whether terminal ballistics or not.

Wound channel is absolutely relevant to terminal ballistics. Where are you coming from on this?

Ok, let me try a different tack here.

Does the wound channel effect the ballistics, or does the ballistic affect the wound channel? Which way does the causality flow?

I made a comment pertaining to the latter – ballistics are not determined by wound channel. You and another poster keep on responding as if I my comment was the former.

Am I to understand you cannot tell the difference? I think you can, and stating I made the former is disingenuous.

The wound channel is a part of ballistics real simple. Kinetic energy will not accurately predict terminal performance.

The factors that matter in creating a wound channel are 1-the frontal area of the projectile 2-the amount of momentum transfered 3-the amount of direct applied force 4-the amount of hydraulic pressure created.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:
Firstly, I repeat, ad nauseam, wound channel has absolutely no bearing on ballistics, whether terminal ballistics or not.

Wound channel is absolutely relevant to terminal ballistics. Where are you coming from on this?

Ok, let me try a different tack here.

Does the wound channel effect the ballistics, or does the ballistic affect the wound channel? Which way does the causality flow?

I made a comment pertaining to the latter – ballistics are not determined by wound channel. You and another poster keep on responding as if I my comment was the former.

Am I to understand you cannot tell the difference? I think you can, and stating I made the former is disingenuous.

The wound channel is a part of ballistics real simple. Kinetic energy will not accurately predict terminal performance.

The factors that matter in creating a wound channel are 1-the frontal area of the projectile 2-the amount of momentum transfered 3-the amount of direct applied force 4-the amount of hydraulic pressure created.

No wound channel is not part of ballistics. Ballistics pertains to the flight of the bullet. No more, no less. Ballistics is defined as “the science of mechanics that deals with the launching, flight, behavior, and effects of projectiles … “. As I mentioned to you before, a baseball in flight has ballistics. Where is the wound channel that you claim is part of ballistics? Watched many games, saw many pitches, not a single wound channel on the diamond ever.

“Kinetic energy is an expression of the fact that a moving object can do work on anything it hits; it quantifies the amount of work the object could do as a result of its motion.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) . In other words, the bullet you fire at a target does damage to the target up to, but not exceeding, the amount of kinetic energy it has upon impact.

The transfer of said kinetic energy is influenced by numerous more factors than what you just thunk up


Yawn, handgun hunters hunters indeed.

Wikipedia - great source to cite.

"Yawn, handgun hunters indeed" you pompous ass. you just got here and the worst part is that you have convinced yourself that you are the smartest man in the room. your knowledge of terminal ballistics is laughable. why don't you crawl back under your rock

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:
No wound channel is not part of ballistics. Ballistics pertains to the flight of the bullet. No more, no less. Ballistics is defined as “the science of mechanics that deals with the launching, flight, behavior, and effects of projectiles … “. As I mentioned to you before, a baseball in flight has ballistics. Where is the wound channel that you claim is part of ballistics? Watched many games, saw many pitches, not a single wound channel on the diamond ever.

"Effects of the projectile" -- the last portion of your definition pertains to what? couldn't the wound channel be considered an effect of the projectile? indeed it can.

You guys are getting out of hand... Semantics, definitions, physics, experience, bla bla bla..LOL!!

As someone who is not the least bit interested in large bore handguns, to me it sound like an argument about whats better, a 30-30 or a 35 Remington!(If I may use that analogy)

Who really cares! do you have fun shooting them? Do you have fun hunting critters with them? Isn't that what really matters? Share ideas, share experiences, and stop being so intense!

It ain't that important! really! LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:
Firstly, I repeat, ad nauseam, wound channel has absolutely no bearing on ballistics, whether terminal ballistics or not.

Wound channel is absolutely relevant to terminal ballistics. Where are you coming from on this?

Ok, let me try a different tack here.

Does the wound channel effect the ballistics, or does the ballistic affect the wound channel? Which way does the causality flow?

I made a comment pertaining to the latter – ballistics are not determined by wound channel. You and another poster keep on responding as if I my comment was the former.

Am I to understand you cannot tell the difference? I think you can, and stating I made the former is disingenuous.

The wound channel is a part of ballistics real simple. Kinetic energy will not accurately predict terminal performance.

The factors that matter in creating a wound channel are 1-the frontal area of the projectile 2-the amount of momentum transfered 3-the amount of direct applied force 4-the amount of hydraulic pressure created.

No wound channel is not part of ballistics. Ballistics pertains to the flight of the bullet. No more, no less. Ballistics is defined as “the science of mechanics that deals with the launching, flight, behavior, and effects of projectiles … “. As I mentioned to you before, a baseball in flight has ballistics. Where is the wound channel that you claim is part of ballistics? Watched many games, saw many pitches, not a single wound channel on the diamond ever.

“Kinetic energy is an expression of the fact that a moving object can do work on anything it hits; it quantifies the amount of work the object could do as a result of its motion.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) . In other words, the bullet you fire at a target does damage to the target up to, but not exceeding, the amount of kinetic energy it has upon impact.

The transfer of said kinetic energy is influenced by numerous more factors than what you just thunk up


Yawn, handgun hunters hunters indeed.

The fact is that I listed what produces the wound channel. I never mentioned transfer of energy, since you did I dwell into that aspect. A bullet strike is an inelastic collision, only a small untraceable amount of energy is transfered in an inelastic collision. Momentum is transfered in all collisions.
Ballistics in terms of firearms is normally broken into 3 parts. The propulsion of the projectile (internal ballistic) flight of the projectile (exterior ballistics) and the effects of the projectile (terminal ballistics). To claim other wise is simply not correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Pa.Frank:
You guys are getting out of hand... Semantics, definitions, physics, experience, bla bla bla..LOL!!

As someone who is not the least bit interested in large bore handguns, to me it sound like an argument about whats better, a 30-30 or a 35 Remington!(If I may use that analogy)

Who really cares! do you have fun shooting them? Do you have fun hunting critters with them? Isn't that what really matters? Share ideas, share experiences, and stop being so intense!

It ain't that important! really! LOL

If you are not interested, then why participate in the handgun hunting forum. Facts, correct facts should always be preserved.

quote:

Originally posted by Pa.Frank:
You guys are getting out of hand... Semantics, definitions, physics, experience, bla bla bla..LOL!!

As someone who is not the least bit interested in large bore handguns, to me it sound like an argument about whats better, a 30-30 or a 35 Remington!(If I may use that analogy)

Who really cares! do you have fun shooting them? Do you have fun hunting critters with them? Isn't that what really matters? Share ideas, share experiences, and stop being so intense!

It ain't that important! really! LOL

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Bye.

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:
Firstly, I repeat, ad nauseam, wound channel has absolutely no bearing on ballistics, whether terminal ballistics or not.

Wound channel is absolutely relevant to terminal ballistics. Where are you coming from on this?

Ok, let me try a different tack here.

Does the wound channel effect the ballistics, or does the ballistic affect the wound channel? Which way does the causality flow?

I made a comment pertaining to the latter – ballistics are not determined by wound channel. You and another poster keep on responding as if I my comment was the former.

Am I to understand you cannot tell the difference? I think you can, and stating I made the former is disingenuous.

The wound channel is a part of ballistics real simple. Kinetic energy will not accurately predict terminal performance.

The factors that matter in creating a wound channel are 1-the frontal area of the projectile 2-the amount of momentum transfered 3-the amount of direct applied force 4-the amount of hydraulic pressure created.

No wound channel is not part of ballistics. Ballistics pertains to the flight of the bullet. No more, no less. Ballistics is defined as “the science of mechanics that deals with the launching, flight, behavior, and effects of projectiles … “. As I mentioned to you before, a baseball in flight has ballistics. Where is the wound channel that you claim is part of ballistics? Watched many games, saw many pitches, not a single wound channel on the diamond ever.

“Kinetic energy is an expression of the fact that a moving object can do work on anything it hits; it quantifies the amount of work the object could do as a result of its motion.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) . In other words, the bullet you fire at a target does damage to the target up to, but not exceeding, the amount of kinetic energy it has upon impact.

The transfer of said kinetic energy is influenced by numerous more factors than what you just thunk up


Yawn, handgun hunters hunters indeed.

You have a lot to learn in several different areas, not the least of which is physics.

Terminal ballistics has everything to do with wound channel. Your lack of knowledge is showing severely. Best that you go get some real world experience under the tutelage of someone who knows what they are doing. Once you have killed several dozen head of big game, then come back and tell us how it's done.

quote:

Originally posted by Pa.Frank:
You guys are getting out of hand... Semantics, definitions, physics, experience, bla bla bla..LOL!!

As someone who is not the least bit interested in large bore handguns, to me it sound like an argument about whats better, a 30-30 or a 35 Remington!(If I may use that analogy)

Who really cares! do you have fun shooting them? Do you have fun hunting critters with them? Isn't that what really matters? Share ideas, share experiences, and stop being so intense!

It ain't that important! really! LOL

talk to your buddy. he showed up ready to school everyone here.

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:
Firstly, I repeat, ad nauseam, wound channel has absolutely no bearing on ballistics, whether terminal ballistics or not.

Wound channel is absolutely relevant to terminal ballistics. Where are you coming from on this?

Ok, let me try a different tack here.

Does the wound channel effect the ballistics, or does the ballistic affect the wound channel? Which way does the causality flow?

I made a comment pertaining to the latter – ballistics are not determined by wound channel. You and another poster keep on responding as if I my comment was the former.

Am I to understand you cannot tell the difference? I think you can, and stating I made the former is disingenuous.

The wound channel is a part of ballistics real simple. Kinetic energy will not accurately predict terminal performance.

The factors that matter in creating a wound channel are 1-the frontal area of the projectile 2-the amount of momentum transfered 3-the amount of direct applied force 4-the amount of hydraulic pressure created.

No wound channel is not part of ballistics. Ballistics pertains to the flight of the bullet. No more, no less. Ballistics is defined as “the science of mechanics that deals with the launching, flight, behavior, and effects of projectiles … “. As I mentioned to you before, a baseball in flight has ballistics. Where is the wound channel that you claim is part of ballistics? Watched many games, saw many pitches, not a single wound channel on the diamond ever.

“Kinetic energy is an expression of the fact that a moving object can do work on anything it hits; it quantifies the amount of work the object could do as a result of its motion.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) . In other words, the bullet you fire at a target does damage to the target up to, but not exceeding, the amount of kinetic energy it has upon impact.

The transfer of said kinetic energy is influenced by numerous more factors than what you just thunk up


Yawn, handgun hunters hunters indeed.

You have a lot to learn in several different areas, not the least of which is physics.

Terminal ballistics has everything to do with wound channel. Your lack of knowledge is showing severely. Best that you go get some real world experience under the tutelage of someone who knows what they are doing. Once you have killed several dozen head of big game, then come back and tell us how it's done.

Another empty head joins the chorus.

Yes, agreed, terminal ballistics has everything to do with the wound channel and your comment may have had some meaning if I had said otherwise. You are welcome to point that out to me if you feel I did.

I'm definitely an anomaly on this board. I can read English.

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:

You have a lot to learn in several different areas

I tend to agree with that, but certainly not from you geniuses on this board who clearly cannot read English.

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:

You have a lot to learn in several different areas

I tend to agree with that, but certainly not from you geniuses on this board who clearly cannot read English.

Don't taint yourself by hanging around here.

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:

You have a lot to learn in several different areas

I tend to agree with that, but certainly not from you geniuses on this board who clearly cannot read English.

Don't taint yourself by hanging around here.

No need to worry about me, I do have a venue where I can converse with educated folks. I just happen to love watching those whom are full of themselves paint themselves into corner.

you're a moron. you came in here on your high horse, and when your "charm" didn't work you act surprised - speaking of empty heads. yeah, go to your little forum of mutual admirers where no one challenges your junk science. it's safer there

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:

quote:

Originally posted by Apuesto Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:

You have a lot to learn in several different areas

I tend to agree with that, but certainly not from you geniuses on this board who clearly cannot read English.

Don't taint yourself by hanging around here.

No need to worry about me, I do have a venue where I can converse with educated folks. I just happen to love watching those whom are full of themselves paint themselves into corner.

You are a fraud. There is no Craig Linebaugh who is a pistol smith. John Linebaugh has been in my home and is a personal friend. Hamilton Bowen is a friend of mine as well.

You do not know of what you speak and we all perfectly understand english, and I hate to paint. So, bye.

Uhh geeze,sorry guys, didn't mean to rile you all up, but I already ordered my 500jrh from Magnum Research, it's a done deal, be here in about 6 weeks or so.
I thought about the 475/480 as I already have the dies, but went with the 500JRH.
I'm sure the whitetail I shoot, (if I can find one here in michigan) won't know a spits worth of difference what hit em, 475 or 500JRH. I did get my ultradot today and it looks nice, thanks Whitworth for recommending it.

quote:

Originally posted by joess:
Uhh geeze,sorry guys, didn't mean to rile you all up, but I already ordered my 500jrh from Magnum Research, it's a done deal, be here in about 6 weeks or so.
I thought about the 475/480 as I already have the dies, but went with the 500JRH.
I'm sure the whitetail I shoot, (if I can find one here in michigan) won't know a spits worth of difference what hit em, 475 or 500JRH. I did get my ultradot today and it looks nice, thanks Whitworth for recommending it.

Not your fault joess. From time to time we get experts on here who seem to get testy when called on their nonsense.

I am stunned that folks that know better were carried along by a dipchit.

quote:

Originally posted by Boxhead:
I am stunned that folks that know better were carried along by a dipchit.

Unfortunately, nuking them right off the bat just isn't an option.

quote:

Originally posted by Boxhead:
I am stunned that folks that know better were carried along by a dipchit.

Facts should always be defended, otherwise those just starting out would be led astray.

Little does he know but I have known John Linebaugh since 1986 and stay in contact with him, he is a wealth of information. I also have the first FA-83 that Jack Huntington converted to 500 JRH. IT is also the revolver that Buffalo Bore used to test the factory JRH ammo that they loaded.

Starline brass will make a Run of 500 JRH brass soon and Buffal Bore will again produce 500 JRH ammo.

On a couple of fronts, 1) the 500 jrh can be loaded to a significant ballistic advantage over the 475. Just a fact. Our last buffalo bore loads ran over 1500 fps with a 420 gr bullet. And very accurate to boot. 2). The bullet and not the caliber determines the terminal ballistics, and the jrh has the much much better bullet selection from more hardcasts, barnes, and a frames the 475 doesnt offer. 3) the bfr is the preferred platform for the jrh over the fa bc of cylinder length. In the short cylindered bfr's the cylinder is barely long but is enougn to make the longer large hardcast bullets work as well as the barnes. In fa i would go with the we500 as the brass is a touch shorter bit works better imho in that gun. 4) i carry the smith 500 6.5" barreled gun with the half underlug barrel. Its not appreciably larger than the bfr with a 7.5" barrel. 5) if ya want a 475 then get one. You'll never left wanting and you and the game will never notice the difference until ya push premium expandables fast, then velocity matters.

Flame on