This is an un Scientific penetration test done on a wild pig about 200 lbs or so.

Shots fired out of a Colt LW Commander, on a pig killed with a rifle.

With Remington 230 Golden Sabre, shots fired into the shoulder and behind the shoulder did not provide complete penetration.

With Remington 230gr Ball shots fired into the shoulder did not provide complete penetration.

A shot fired just behind the shoulder, the bullet was observed just about to break through the skin. A slight knife cut, and the 230gr ball bullet was recovered.

All of these shots were fired at point blank range.

I have also shot into the brain of pigs [killed by rifle fire, just doing 45 ACP penetration tests] from the front with 230gr Golden Sabre HP's and 230gr Ball. All rounds penetrated to the brain.

The 45 ACP "ain't" no 44 Mag, but with heavy bullets, well handled, it will get the job done...

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:

The 45 ACP "ain't" no 44 Mag, but with heavy bullets, well handled, it will get the job done...

And I never doubted it......

With the Golden Sabre and Ball ammo when fired into the shoulder, did they penetrate the shoulder and into the vitals?

Penetration alone does not kill fast unless to the brain or spine.
You forget energy at the right place, at the right time.
I do not believe in muzzle energy or paper figures but only in what a bullet does where needed.
You would meet requirements better with live pigs. Dead meat is already dead!

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
You forget energy at the right place, at the right time.
I do not believe in muzzle energy or paper figures but only in what a bullet does where needed.

i have seen you write this before, and it is a contradiction. do you believe in energy or not. seems you do by the above statement. i have trouble following this premise. please explain. for energy to be at the right place at the right time, do the stars have to be aligned for this to happen?

kinetic energy is simply by definition the ability of an object to do work. which can be many things. the type of projectile, size, weight, structure and material all plays a role as to how much of that energy can in a sense do "work" on the animal. so it matters but not to the degree the energy dump camp purports, nor to as little a degree as the energy doesn't matter camp. this is why you'll see less powerful calibers in pistols do more devastating damage to an animal than some more powerful rifle calibers. it's not that the energy doesn't matter, the given projectiles don't allow it to matter if that makes sense.

Once again, energy is not transferred, momentum is transferred. Energy doesn't matter as it has always been used as a means of selling "bigger and better" cartridges to those who don't know any better. Energy is a calculated number and most people seem to think more is better; it's smoke and mirrors.

quote:

Once again, energy is not transferred, momentum is transferred

I respectfully disagree. When a still object is struck by a moving object, momentum is not what is transferred, it is energy. This is a simple law of physics. Energy is neither created nor destroyed; it is transferred.

And one more point, if I may, and I will shut up: energy transfer is a function of time inside or in contact with the target. The less time inside or in contact with an object, the less energy is transferred, and the more remains when the moving object exits the target.

Lar 45

Sorry I did not dig into the pig. The meat was not recovered.

Next time I get a chance I will do some more tests on a pig I plan on butchering.

Doubless brings up a theory about energy transfer over time.

This is a concept not widely discussed today.

I call it the British Dwell Theory.
I read about it many, many years ago in a book about why the British had chosed some of the handgun cartridges for Military use.

Roughly;
There thoughts being, that a low velocity heavy bullet, that still gives adequate penetration, imparts more "effect" to the person being shot, since at low velocity it acts longer inside the target. The longer the bullet is moving in the target the more the target "feels" the effects of the penetration, and is more likely to be quickly incapacated.

The British did indeed perform extensive trials on gun/rifle/pistol ammunition.
In many cases they found better penetration by slowing the bullets down (or decreased performance with greater velocity...)

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed; it is transferred.

Yes, mostly to thermal energy.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

Once again, energy is not transferred, momentum is transferred

I respectfully disagree. When a still object is struck by a moving object, momentum is not what is transferred, it is energy. This is a simple law of physics. Energy is neither created nor destroyed; it is transferred.

And one more point, if I may, and I will shut up: energy transfer is a function of time inside or in contact with the target. The less time inside or in contact with an object, the less energy is transferred, and the more remains when the moving object exits the target.

Disagree all you wish to, but that does not change the fact you are wrong.

On a similar note I have cleaned very large boars with different caliber bullets in them that did not penetrate the on-side gristle shield, much less into the vitals. Including one big boy with a 9mm ball bullet in his shoulder. The rest were primarily 22 lr and various size lead shot.

quote:

Originally posted by a.tinkerer:
The British did indeed perform extensive trials on gun/rifle/pistol ammunition.
In many cases they found better penetration by slowing the bullets down (or decreased performance with greater velocity...)

Unless you greatly overmatch the bullet for your game, one is going to get either penetration or expansion; but not both. Greater expansion and less penetration, or in the case of going to a harder bullet, less expansion and greater penetration. Slowing down the projectile increases penetration (to a point, there diminishing returns going both ways); handgun hunters have known this for years.

I have gotten length-wise penetration on whitetail deer with Ballistic Tips by slowing the velocity.

quote:

Posted 29 March 2012 08:18 Hide Post
Doubless brings up a theory about energy transfer over time.

This is a concept not widely discussed today.

I call it the British Dwell Theory.
I read about it many, many years ago in a book about why the British had chosed some of the handgun cartridges for Military use.

Roughly;
There thoughts being, that a low velocity heavy bullet, that still gives adequate penetration, imparts more "effect" to the person being shot, since at low velocity it acts longer inside the target. The longer the bullet is moving in the target the more the target "feels" the effects of the penetration, and is more likely to be quickly incapacated.

That is what I have found on deer. The same boolit too fast punches a hole, slow it and more damage is done but slow it too much and damage starts to get reduced again. Yet the slower boolit has proved to be better then the one too fast.
Change animal size and boolits and velocity must be changed for the best affect.
Penetration alone does not work and nether does energy dump, a false premise.
It will always be what the boolit does in the animal before exit that counts. Exit is important for a blood trail. But just poking a hole is not best either.
Some time ago I read in the PA game news about a buck that was shot. It had a huge lump in the chest. Came to be a burned branch the deer ran into. It was burned to a point and entered the chest, penetrated the heart and healed up. The deer was healthy when shot even though it had wood through the heart.
Bullet makers go out of their way to provide the right expansion without weight loss of the bullet and give penetration. A hard boolit is like ball ammo if too fast. Meant to make more soldiers remove wounded from the field and reducing those needed to fight.
Not like the civil war where a guy shot was mush and left to die.

Terminal baliistics has so many factors that come into play. Im mostly a handgun hunter so even my fastest loads are slow in the rhelm of todays high velocity rifles. I use hard cast bullets mostly and solid wide metplats vs HPs is the norm and it seems that between 950-1200fps is the happy spot for the loads i use. Animals drop quick when hit in the right spot (usually) and penetration is good. But I have anomalies at times where solid hits = me chasing and others where solid hit = DRT. Energy can neither be created or detroyed is the first law of thermodynamics, this is particle physics, our bullets are good but we arent creating nuclear blasts. Were talking potential (bullet at rest) energy which turns into kinetic energy (bullet in motion) which gets transferred from the bullet when it hits its target. Bullet design dictates rate of transfer and where the bullet hits determines where its transferred (vitals hopefully) HP bullets do transfer more energy quicker but as is well know slow down faster so penetration can be an issue. Solid round nose bullets have habit of penetrating well but often deflect off of bone so vital hits can be questionable. Flat noses in my experience penetrate well stay straight and tranfer a good anount of energy and thats my choise. Momentum does play a role because its harder to stop something with lots of momentum. A heavy bullet moving at less velocity will penetrate better than a lighter bullet at higher velocity even though kinetic energy may be higher with the faster load. There are a lot of factors at play that determine penetration...

quote:

Originally posted by ss30378:
Momentum does play a role because its harder to stop something with lots of momentum. A heavy bullet moving at less velocity will penetrate better than a lighter bullet at higher velocity even though kinetic energy may be higher with the faster load.

Now, you are talking about inertia here, not momentum. Momentum has everything to do with it. Kinetic energy converts to some thermal energy and acoustic energy, but it is momentum that is transferred.

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:

quote:

Originally posted by ss30378:
Momentum does play a role because its harder to stop something with lots of momentum. A heavy bullet moving at less velocity will penetrate better than a lighter bullet at higher velocity even though kinetic energy may be higher with the faster load.

Now, you are talking about inertia here, not momentum. Momentum has everything to do with it. Kinetic energy converts to some thermal energy and acoustic energy, but it is momentum that is transferred.

Please people, go actually read a physics book before quoting the various laws.

I know this is a handgun hunting forum, however, it appears some remedial information is necessary.

The Four Laws of Thermodynamics are as follows:

Zeroth. If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other.

First.Heat and work are forms of energy transfer.

Second. The entropy of any closed system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases.

Third. The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero.

Inertia is defined as; the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest, or the tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion.

Momentum is defined as; the product of the mass and velocity of an object

Finally, work; In physics, mechanical work is a scalar quantity that can be described as the product of a force times the distance through which it acts, and it is called the work of the force. The first law of thermodynamics states that when work is done to a system (and no other energy is subtracted in other ways), the system's energy state changes by the same amount of the work input. This equates work and energy. In the case of rigid bodies, Newton's laws can be used to derive a similar relationship called the work-energy theorem. This is NOT the case in a bullet strike.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

Once again, energy is not transferred, momentum is transferred

I respectfully disagree. When a still object is struck by a moving object, momentum is not what is transferred, it is energy. This is a simple law of physics. Energy is neither created nor destroyed; it is transferred.

And one more point, if I may, and I will shut up: energy transfer is a function of time inside or in contact with the target. The less time inside or in contact with an object, the less energy is transferred, and the more remains when the moving object exits the target.

Disagre if you must and you will be completely incorrect





Energy mostly changes forms mostly thermal

Momentum is indeed what is transfered

my experience is, with 45acp, 40sw, 10mm, and 45LC... head shots rarely exit, body shots sometimes do.. but not often...

quote:

Disagree all you wish to, but that does not change the fact you are wrong.

Give me a fact, you arrogant ass. I have seen you quote other erroneous statements, never with anything to support. Please provide me with a single statement from any learned and studied scholar that contradicts what I said. Just one will suffice, and I am not talking about the study of shooting steel plates that so many of you are willing to hang your philosophical hat on.

I am waiting...

quote:

I have gotten length-wise penetration on whitetail deer with Ballistic Tips by slowing the velocity.

Here you contradict your own mantra. Which is it?

Still waiting...

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

I have gotten length-wise penetration on whitetail deer with Ballistic Tips by slowing the velocity.

Here you contradict your own mantra. Which is it?

Still waiting...

I'm no tearing up my bullet as quickly, so it gets through the deer before it goes to pieces. It's still momentum that is transferred and not energy. Where is the contradiction?

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

Disagree all you wish to, but that does not change the fact you are wrong.

Give me a fact, you arrogant ass. I have seen you quote other erroneous statements, never with anything to support. Please provide me with a single statement from any learned and studied scholar that contradicts what I said. Just one will suffice, and I am not talking about the study of shooting steel plates that so many of you are willing to hang your philosophical hat on.

I am waiting...

Please see my above post where I provide you with some fundamental definitions; or do I need to break this down to a more simple level for you?

Bullets don't care what they hit, and this isn't philosophy; it's physics.

The first law i stated was correct, simplisticly put energy stays the same, just changes forms. Ill say momentum is the main transfer on bullet impact (looked into it this time) so i was wrong in that sense, its been a long time since my college physics and my wife tells me i'm losing my memory, guess shes right. Sorry for the mislead info... Watching the universe cd's i have they have a great rundown on the first and second laws of thermodynamics. From Michio Kaku: 1st law states energy can neither be created nor destroyed (example: burn a piece of paper and add up all the heat, light, smoke and ash and the energy will be the same as the original piece of paper) 2nd law essentially kills the first by bringing in the total amount of randomness which he summed it up by stating all things must pass and eventually all the energy in the universe eventually becomes unusable. Now this man has written more physics books than ill ever read so hes credible in my mind. Thanks for giving me a reason to watch my good ol vids! Sorry for veering off topic guys.

We cross this bridge on a regular basis. Makes for a good arguments, I mean discussion.

The DVDs sound interesting. This is just classical physics, quantum is another ball of wax.

Well all ballistic, energy, momentum, quantum physics theories aside, there is only one way to kill and animal, and that is to destroy brain function.

You can do it by shooting into the brain, shooting the heart or other areas that cause the blood to the brain to stop, or you can shoot the lungs, causing the stoppage of oxygen getting into the blood and thus delivered to the brain.

Kill the Brain, Kill the Beast.

Some shots in some places and some cartridges that cause a lot of shock, in the right place, can sometimes effect the animal and cause instant incapication. Which may or may not lead to death.

In the History of man hunting with firearms, it always seems that too little penetration, causes a lot more problems than too little expansion.

Of course, the best deal is the right amount of both.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

Disagree all you wish to, but that does not change the fact you are wrong.

Give me a fact, you arrogant ass. I have seen you quote other erroneous statements, never with anything to support. Please provide me with a single statement from any learned and studied scholar that contradicts what I said. Just one will suffice, and I am not talking about the study of shooting steel plates that so many of you are willing to hang your philosophical hat on.

I am waiting...

The only arrrogant ass is the one you see in the mirror.


Nobody has mentioned shooting a steel plate but he ballistics pendulem is straight simple physics and is not a steel plate.

A bullet strike is an inelastic collision and energy is not conserved in this type of collision.

A copy of this book would certainly help you

quote:

A bullet strike is an inelastic collision and energy is not conserved in this type of collision.

Just where did this piece of brilliance come from? You been reading Wikipedia again?

Also, never in my life of almost 58 years have I seen four lines of equations without a single definition of a variable... Yes, momemtum is M, and Velocity is V, but show me where all the justification for this high school exercise in math comes from. Or did you just dream it up?

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

A bullet strike is an inelastic collision and energy is not conserved in this type of collision.

Just where did this piece of brilliance come from? You been reading Wikipedia again?

Also, never in my life of almost 58 years have I seen four lines of equations without a single definition of a variable... Yes, momemtum is M, and Velocity is V, but show me where all the justification for this high school exercise in math comes from. Or did you just dream it up?

I would believe the diagrams to be self-explanatory for anyone with a modicum of common sense. The little "m"s represent mass of objects 1 and 2. KE stands for kinetic energy.

This little exercise in high school math is the mathematical explanation for what we are discussing. Justification can be found in most any high school or college physics book.

You may want to sit out on any further discussions on this material until you can go get educated on this stuff. I find your understanding to be most lacking.

Taken from one of your illustrious college physics books:

"No, momentum is not a type of energy. Momentum and energy are totally different physical quantities with different physical dimensions.

So, Hitman: which are we talking about? I am talking energy, and you are talking momentum. They are not the same thing.

Am I really so stupid?

Years ago in NE Oregon I shot a little (230 lb) blk bear that was tree'd with a Colt Combat Cdr with the old original 185 gr Hornady HPs loaded over 6.5 gr Red Dot for 940 fps (Oehler M11).

I was able to get up a hillside where The shot was fairly level at perhaps 25 - 30 yards. I shot the bear 4 times and 3 were through and through in the chest/heat/lung area. The one recovered bullet (under the hide on the far side) showed no expansion). The bear dies quickly and fell out of the pine tree.

As a LEO I was also able to dispatch a lot of wounded/injured deer/elk and domestic animals over the years. I also was able to carry what every firearms I wanted for the purpose by the Sheriff. With the 45 ACP I found the 45 ACP to be entirely adequate for deer and similar sized animals, especially with the later developed effective HPs such as the Speer 200 gr FAT HP.

While the OP used a short barreled Commander in longer barrel M1911s and revolvers a proper load in the 45 ACP is as effective on deer or similar animals as the standard .45 Colt or .44 SPL loads of 200 - 250 gr bullets at 800 - 1000 fps. However, the effective range is generally well less than 50 yards and the bullets from all must be placed properly.

Larry Gibson

A good number of years ago a group of gun testers got permission to shoot steers due to be slaughtered. They wanted to test the 230 grain hollow points in the 45 acp. They gathered all the factory ammo that made such rounds such as the Golden Sabre, Starfire, Federal Hydra-shok, Speer Gold Dot, Hornady XTP, and others. The steer were shot from head on at 25 feet between the eyes. All loads killed the steer instantly and effectively. A few were spectacular such as the PMC Starfire. The shooter said he was sprayed with brain matter and blood from 25 feet away and that the eyeballs were blown out of the head. Only one bullet penetrated completely through the head and that was the Hornady XTP. It went through the head, down the neck, and ended up in the shoulder.

The 45 acp is a very effective round for the small powder capacity that it has. I wouldn't compare pigs with other animals that are in it's weight range such as deer and even black bear. The pig has areas much tougher to penetrate. A black bear, although some reaching impressive weights, are noways as hard to bring down as the larger bears such as the Browns and Grizzly. As a side note all these animals have been killed with a 22RF. Kind of makes you scratch your head.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
Taken from one of your illustrious college physics books:

"No, momentum is not a type of energy. Momentum and energy are totally different physical quantities with different physical dimensions.

So, Hitman: which are we talking about? I am talking energy, and you are talking momentum. They are not the same thing.

Am I really so stupid?

Very good energy and momentum are not the same thing you are progressing

JWP, I find your last statement very condescending. From my very first post I have said the same thing, and you and the illustrious MS Hitman have told me I was wrong. You two have continued to compare apples to oranges. I hope the two of you are satisfied.

Now: for the benefit of the rest of us on this thread, please tell me who the arrogant asses are.

There is a reason I have had you on ignore...

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
JWP, I find your last statement very condescending. From my very first post I have said the same thing, and you and the illustrious MS Hitman have told me I was wrong. You two have continued to compare apples to oranges. I hope the two of you are satisfied.

Now: for the benefit of the rest of us on this thread, please tell me who the arrogant asses are.

There is a reason I have had you on ignore...

Let met help you by recapping your posts and the responses



You posted this in response to MS Hitman's reply that momentum transferred not energy

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

Once again, energy is not transferred, momentum is transferred

I respectfully disagree. When a still object is struck by a moving object, momentum is not what is transferred, it is energy. This is a simple law of physics. Energy is neither created nor destroyed; it is transferred.

And one more point, if I may, and I will shut up: energy transfer is a function of time inside or in contact with the target. The less time inside or in contact with an object, the less energy is transferred, and the more remains when the moving object exits the target.

then MS Hitman's reply

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

Once again, energy is not transferred, momentum is transferred

I respectfully disagree. When a still object is struck by a moving object, momentum is not what is transferred, it is energy. This is a simple law of physics. Energy is neither created nor destroyed; it is transferred.

And one more point, if I may, and I will shut up: energy transfer is a function of time inside or in contact with the target. The less time inside or in contact with an object, the less energy is transferred, and the more remains when the moving object exits the target.

Disagree all you wish to, but that does not change the fact you are wrong.

My reply

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

Once again, energy is not transferred, momentum is transferred

I respectfully disagree. When a still object is struck by a moving object, momentum is not what is transferred, it is energy. This is a simple law of physics. Energy is neither created nor destroyed; it is transferred.

And one more point, if I may, and I will shut up: energy transfer is a function of time inside or in contact with the target. The less time inside or in contact with an object, the less energy is transferred, and the more remains when the moving object exits the target.

Disagree if you must and you will be completely incorrect





Energy mostly changes forms mostly thermal

Momentum is indeed what is transferred

Your reply where you called me an "arrogant ass" just for posting the correct information

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

Disagree all you wish to, but that does not change the fact you are wrong.

Give me a fact, you arrogant ass. I have seen you quote other erroneous statements, never with anything to support. Please provide me with a single statement from any learned and studied scholar that contradicts what I said. Just one will suffice, and I am not talking about the study of shooting steel plates that so many of you are willing to hang your philosophical hat on.

I am waiting...

my reply

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

Disagree all you wish to, but that does not change the fact you are wrong.

Give me a fact, you arrogant ass. I have seen you quote other erroneous statements, never with anything to support. Please provide me with a single statement from any learned and studied scholar that contradicts what I said. Just one will suffice, and I am not talking about the study of shooting steel plates that so many of you are willing to hang your philosophical hat on.

I am waiting...

The only arrogant ass is the one you see in the mirror.


Nobody has mentioned shooting a steel plate but he ballistics pendulum is straight simple physics and is not a steel plate.

A bullet strike is an inelastic collision and energy is not conserved in this type of collision.

A copy of this book would certainly help you











Then your very obvious ignorant reply

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
Taken from one of your illustrious college physics books:

"No, momentum is not a type of energy. Momentum and energy are totally different physical quantities with different physical dimensions.

So, Hitman: which are we talking about? I am talking energy, and you are talking momentum. They are not the same thing.

Am I really so stupid?

Very good energy and momentum are not the same thing you are progressing

then my reply to above post

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
Taken from one of your illustrious college physics books:

"No, momentum is not a type of energy. Momentum and energy are totally different physical quantities with different physical dimensions.

So, Hitman: which are we talking about? I am talking energy, and you are talking momentum. They are not the same thing.

Am I really so stupid?

Very good energy and momentum are not the same thing you are progressing

That brings us to the obvious conclusion and that is, you do not know the subject matter and you started the BS with the name calling



Oh yea there are 2 types of collisions elastic and inelastic and it is science that came up with the terms

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
Taken from one of your illustrious college physics books:

"No, momentum is not a type of energy. Momentum and energy are totally different physical quantities with different physical dimensions.

So, Hitman: which are we talking about? I am talking energy, and you are talking momentum. They are not the same thing.

Am I really so stupid?

No sir, you are not going to deflect and take this discussion off on a tangent. I made the statement of fact that energy is not transferred when a bullet strikes an animal, that momentum is. You disagreed with this and I informed you that you are incorrect.

You asked for proof of this, jwp posted the mathematical explanation for this and you really showed your lack of understanding by questioning what the different variables represent and how did we come up with bullet strikes being inelastic collisions. "Four lines of mathematical expressions and no explanation of the variables"; come on! You obviously have never stuck your nose in an engineering or physics book. I would guess very few that did not have more photos than text by your statements.

Now you actually think stating the obvious is going to turn this discussion around in your favor? That you can publicly state momentum and energy are not the same does show improvement on your part, there may be hope for you yet.

Do not try and muddy the water with me boy. You are still wrong in your assertion that energy is transferred in this scenario and will be wrong until the day physics is redefined. Your lack of understanding of this subject matter continues to be most blatant.