The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting Handgun Hunting 45 ACP Penetration on Pig Topic ClosedGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools |
| 45 ACP Penetration on Pig | Login/Join |
| Moderator |
Doubless, jwp has brought this to your attention, but I will reiterate as you seem to be a bit on the slow side.
This is where you messed up. You have been corrected and given the information, which you do not seem to understand, and you still want to argue. Now you are trying to take off on a tangent and pretend this is my misunderstanding when you have been wrong from the above quoted post. This little tactic is not going to work. If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Go back and look at your text in red. I didn't try to argue until you changed what I said and then told me I was wrong. I am not ashamed to admit when I am wrong, or to admit that I am a long way from knowing it all. You, however, have some sort of superior complex that won't allow that. Now, one final statement, and I will shut up. IF, and that is capitalized for a reason, energy is not transferred, tell me how a bullet moving 2500 feet per second will sometimes lie totally spent against the skin of the off side. Was it or was it not carrying energy when it entered? Where did that energy go? Listening to you and JWP, there is no transfer of energy at all, and I submit that is incorrect. It isn't momentum that causes tissue damage, it is energy. It IS your misunderstanding. You told me energy wasn't transferred, momentum was. Go back and read your first post. YOU took this thread on a tangent, and JWP followed. I point out the error in how you contradicted me using a quote from one of your wonderful college books, and you refuse to acknowledge it. I am done, and you are still arrogant. I apologize for the word "ass". I should not have used it, but with all your braying it seemed accurate. | |||
|
| Moderator |
You are still wrong. Momentum is transferred, NOT energy. I said this from the start, you stated you disagreed and that energy is transferred. Your "quote" only states energy and momentum are not the same. This is the only factual statement you have made. I did not change anything you wrote, but rather quoted you directly. You do not understand this matter, when you asked what the variables met and your questioning inelastic and elastic collisions; you gave yourself away. You have been corrected numerous times and you still are arguing. Once again, it is momentum that is transferred, not energy, when a bullet strikes a target. "Energy dump" is a myth; always has been, always will be. The reason the bullet stopped under the hide? Not enough momentum and inertia. The kinetic energy it had now is potential energy and you are going to have to look that term up yourself as you are going to have to learn this for yourself. If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| one of us |
While I am not a "Physisist" Energy and Momentum are nothing more than a mathamatical caculation... So when a projectile in Motion, contacts another mass, energy, and monentum will be changed... The bottom line for hunters is, do you have enough penetration, and is enough tissue destroyed, to kill the brain??? And how fast does the brain die... DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY | |||
|
One of Us |
Momentum transfers in all collisions and do not change forms, momentum is measurable as the diagram of the ballistics pendulum clearly illustrates.  Kinetic energy is calculated by squaring the velocity of a bullet then multiplying by the weight of the bullet and then dividing by 450400. Force equals mass times acceleration, it is force that crushes tissue, the amount of "direct applied force" as well hydraulic pressure stretching tissue past it's elastic limits. _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
momentum doesn't explain this either. putting up all the equations in the world doesn't mean a thing if ya can't break them down and use them yourself. there's ample discussion in the world of wound ballistics on momentum vs energy and the debate has never been settled. there's evidence to both sides, and neither adequately describes what we all observe when taking care of wounded people. the reason is......we're just not good at quantifying what we see with either of these two models, they BOTH at times explain what we observe and this debate will likely not be solved completely. but neither side in this is entirely right, nor entirely wrong. | |||
|
| Moderator |
Duncan MacPherson has the best model for determining wound channels and it is based on momentum and not energy. While you may not understand these things, you are definitely speaking for yourself. If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Energy is not conservered in an inelastic conclusion and that is a sceintific fact and anyone that argues that does not have a clue about the subject and that is a fact _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| Moderator |
And if one asks what is an inelastic collision, or wants to know where it came from; we are aware that person really doesn't have a clue. If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| One of Us |
not debating elastic vs inelastic collision. a bullet hitting a game animal is not a perfectly elastic collision by any definition. | |||
|
| one of us |
I do not put much emphasis on energy figures. Take the 223 vs the 44 Mag. The 223 has more energy, but which would you rather have if a bear was attacking you? Like wise you could have two 300 Mags, one with 180gr Ballistic Tips, the other with 180 Nosler Partitions,both have the same energy, which one would you pick for big game... Truth is I never look at energy figures. With handguns I look at bore diameter, bullet weight, and velocity. DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY | |||
|
| Moderator |
By defintion, it IS NOT an elastic collision. There is no room for debate. If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| Moderator |
That is the correct direction to take with regards to energy figures. Although a bit off, your .300 Win Mag example deals specifically with bullet construction as the momentum will be extremely close. The .44 Mag yields more MOMENTUM and that, combined with the proper bullet will make it more suited for handling bear than the .223. We're getting closer, just have to keep repeating that momentum, not energy, is transferred. If everyone would repeat this to themselves five or six times daily, we would soon have all this misconception cleared up and done away. If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| One of Us |
momentum is not perfectly transferred either. that's why a thrown bowling ball, rock, ball bearing shot from a slingshot that all have more momentum than any of the above bullets but dont' kill as well as any of them. the ability to do work is what defines what damage a bullet can do to the animal, type of bullet determines what work gets done, i.e. the wound channel. diameter, metal type, nose profile etc are all part of this. take a 170 gr 30/30 bullet or a 85 gr barnes 257 weatherby load and fire at a bear, which one do ya pick. | |||
|
| Moderator |
Okay, and this has what to do with the price of tea in China? For someone who claims to be in the medical field, you don't know much about blunt trauma do you? One have to drive a baseball extremely hard to cause it to penetrate tissue and develop a wound channel. I can take a pickup, which will over match most intended, or unintended targets and kill most effectively at a much lower velocity than most revolvers are loaded. For the record, I am going to use my .475 or .500 Linebaugh; I'm not much of a greenhorn; take that argument somewhere else. If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| one of us |
I think all the "Scientific" information posted here just confirmes what I have thought since I started shooting. There is just not any mathamatical formula that can quantify, or qualify, wounding or killing performance of a particular cartridge or projectile. DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY | |||
|
| One of Us |
there is things that work and things that don't work and math and equations don't always make something better or worse and when things work, some will claim that something else works better, which is inherently difficult to quantify. | |||
|
| Moderator |
Only to those who do not seem to understand the subject. So, you are telling me that several hundred years of development of physics just isn't getting the job done? If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| One of Us |
well, we got the laws down, are constantly finding new things out on the subatomic level. but we still can't figure out based on numbers whether a 170 gr 30/30 bullet at 2000 fps works better than an all copper barnes 85 gr bullet out of a 257 weatherby at 3800 fps. which equation gives ya the answer to that one? how about a 375 h/h with a 300gr bullet at 2500 fps vs a 45/70 with a 405gr bullet at 2000 fps at 50 yards. which one is better. find the equation. | |||
|
| Moderator |
Now you are just being ridiculous.  Duncan MacPherson has a mathematical model based on momentum that has proven very accurate for wound channel determinations.If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Do people even read the complete threads  _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
Damn... MY HEAD IS BUSTIN OPEN WITH ALL THIS INFORMATION. A=HUNTER Gr=GUN/RIFLE C=CARTRIDGE P=PROJECTILE Dg=DEAD GAME. THAT’S MY THEORY OF MATHOMOUS CALCULOPHYSIBRA PROJECTILOUS AND I AM STICKIN WITH IT. "We Don't Rent Pigs !" | |||
|
| Moderator |
Everybody gotta believe in something. If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
Moderator |
Like Leprechauns?  "Ignorance you can correct, you can't fix stupid." JWP If stupidity hurt, a lot of people would be walking around screaming. Semper Fidelis "Building Carpal Tunnel one round at a time" | |||
|
| Moderator |
Actually, I believe the Easter Bunny is next up to bat. If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| Moderator |
Still recovering from St. Paddy's day...... "Ignorance you can correct, you can't fix stupid." JWP If stupidity hurt, a lot of people would be walking around screaming. Semper Fidelis "Building Carpal Tunnel one round at a time" | |||
|
| one of us |
Trademark has got a valid point. You three guys say its momentum and you have formulas. How about you prove what your saying useing those formulas with the proper labels attached? If not, then what you say could be considered something less than correct. | |||
|
| Moderator |
This has been offered on the thread already, even with drawings. However, one can go to any high school or physics book that has been or is used for a school curriculum and read for themselves. Maybe it's time you did a little reading for yourself. I also took the liberty of cleaning up your grammar a bit as well. If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| one of us |
I'll assume that you and the others can't do it then. | |||
|
| Moderator |
I wouldn't make that assumption. "Ignorance you can correct, you can't fix stupid." JWP If stupidity hurt, a lot of people would be walking around screaming. Semper Fidelis "Building Carpal Tunnel one round at a time" | |||
|
| Moderator |
You need to read the entire thread dude. It's been shown with all the variables, explanations, and pictures. Make any assumptions you wish. By your grammar and response, I could assume you aren't smart enough to look this stuff up for yourself; what good would that do anyone? If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| One of Us |
ms, i'm assuming by your responses you didn't graduate with a degree in physics either. there's many many correct things in your posts, there are also some things that just aren't purely accurate. i'm well aware of duncan's writings, he did a great job mathematically quantifying what we see in ballistic gel. however, his writings are absolutely not considered dogma in trauma surgery circles, ya know the guys that deal with people that get shot. so which is better the 30/30 or the 257 weatherby, the 375HH or the 45/70? | |||
|
| Moderator |
Even better, I graduated with a degree in engineering. I've told you take the rest of your nonsense somewhere else. If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| One of Us |
If there is any one thing I have learned after working with hundreds of engineers in commerical nuclear power for about the last 30 years, it is this: Everything they believe is supportable by a number or equation, and for an engineer, everything fits into a neat little box. If it cannot be fit into that neat little box, it is discarded like yesterday's newspaper. As direct support for the above statement, please review the two page thread. If it is not agreed to and cannot be proven by numbers, it is refuted or judged to be incorrect. Unfortunately, there are certain things that cannot be proven. It is called theory. For instance: it is absolutely impossible to prove there is not at least one extra neutron running around in a nuclear reactor after a fission "cycle". But for Keff to equal exactly 1.00, not a single extra neutron is allowed... Yeah, right. Another reason I never became an engineer: the idea of theory to them is incomprehensible... | |||
|
| Moderator |
Yes indeed, most of the people I know who did not become engineers could not get past the math and physics courses. If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You're joking, right? Why would a doctor use a book about whether energy transfers or not? I believe a doctor would use a book about treating wounds _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
one of us |
The good thing is that we deal in absolutes and dont have to guess if one is better than the other. Dead=dead=dead. Did the critter die after being shot? If the answer is yes then you made the right choice. The missing variable imo is the shooter. Some people could do with a 45acp what other couldnt do with a high powered magnum rifle. -------------------- THANOS WAS RIGHT! | |||
|
| Moderator |
The original post was an exercise in being ridiculous. If ignorance is bliss; there are some blissful sonofaguns around here. We know who you are, so no reason to point yourselves out. | |||
|
| one of us |
450NE No 2, Thanks for the info. FWIW, my limited experience with .45acp on pigs was not great. I'm not sure what my friend's load was, but we ended up chasing two rifle-shot-but-not-dead pigs through the underbrush, and he had his .45. He shot one twice to kill it. The other he shot at 4 or 5 times, and we ended up getting the rifle into the scrub to kill it. We were teasing him about his marksmanship, but when we finally got in to where it was hiding, it had 4 bullet wounds on the head. But it was still alive until we shot it with the 30.06. It happened last summer, and I was planning on bringing a .44 Mag for that duty if we go again this year. Steve | |||
|
| One of Us |
rmiller, you got the point i was making perfectly. ms hitman, it's not bordering on the ridiculous, i figured a few of ya could put the equations to work and give me a quantifiable answer as to which would work best? | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Topic Closed The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting Handgun Hunting 45 ACP Penetration on Pig
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia