quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
That is exactly the point, tradmark... they can't. What they put on paper and explain with equations to back what they believe won't work in reality, and there is no explanation for it.

quote:

Oh really? You've never read MacPherson's book and I doubt that you've killed much, or for that matter any big game with a revolver.

Please enlighten us with your knowledge on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

Oh really? You've never read MacPherson's book and I doubt that you've killed much, or for that matter any big game with a revolver.

Please enlighten us with your knowledge on the subject.

I would be wasting my time on those who choose to believe what they wish...

I have killed pigs with 22 shorts, whitetails with 357, 44 mag and 45 Colt. I have shot red stag with cast bullets from a 40. Is that enough?

JWP, I don't NEED to prove a freaking thing to you. You have your beliefs, I have mine. You cannot prove me wrong, and you choose to continue to try to.

Just remember: you are on ignore for a reason, and I CHOOSE to read the drivel you post. You and MS go have a drinking party and admire one another's beliefs. I know better.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:

quote:

Oh really? You've never read MacPherson's book and I doubt that you've killed much, or for that matter any big game with a revolver.

Please enlighten us with your knowledge on the subject.

And known of those animals were killed by "energy transfer" the problem is you don't know at all.

You have me on ignore? Seems you have trouble with facts that are not radical to the truth

I would be wasting my time on those who choose to believe what they wish...

I have killed pigs with 22 shorts, whitetails with 357, 44 mag and 45 Colt. I have shot red stag with cast bullets from a 40. Is that enough?

JWP, I don't NEED to prove a freaking thing to you. You have your beliefs, I have mine. You cannot prove me wrong, and you choose to continue to try to.

Just remember: you are on ignore for a reason, and I CHOOSE to read the drivel you post. You and MS go have a drinking party and admire one another's beliefs. I know better.

quote:

Originally posted by 700xcr:
Lets all give each other a Big Hug. There are many different beliefs in the world. If you have tried to prove your point and point doesn't get across. Let lie. No sense getting into a pissen match.

quote:

Originally posted by tradmark:
so, since no one will answer the question, the 257 weatherby provides a much much larger wound channel in every comparison in ballistic gel that's ever been done when compared to a 30/30. the 30/30 load has a larger diameter and more momentum, the 257 only has more velocity and approximately 50% more KE. so if the momentum model was completely true as billed then the 30/30 would provide more damage, but it doesn't. neither does the 45/70 more than the 375 H/H. and this could've been answered quickly by anyone actually able to use the equations doled out in mcpherson's book. wound channel size is larger on the part of the 375 as well, so what gives? well, as we all know anything shot with any of the above in the vitals will die, but in an inelastic collision the momentum guys here are right in that not all of the KE is conserved but what does that mean? it means not 100% of the KE is conserved but much of it can be. any collision that does not conserve 100% of KE is by definition inelastic. that said, there's no perfectly inelastic collisions in the real world that 100% of momentum is conserved either. do it with the pool balls, the ballistic pendulum, or anyother model and you'll see momentum isn't 100% conserved either. the implication typically given on this forum is that just because KE isn't 100% conserved it's not playing a role but there's just waaaaay too much evidence the other way around.

neither model correctly predicts what happens in game or in a wound channel in living tissue. there's elements of truth in both, but the amount of people digging their heels in on one side or the other is just not correct. demonizing those that don't agree with flawed conclusions is just as incorrect.

quote:

Originally posted by tradmark:
so, since no one will answer the question, the 257 weatherby provides a much much larger wound channel in every comparison in ballistic gel that's ever been done when compared to a 30/30. the 30/30 load has a larger diameter and more momentum, the 257 only has more velocity and approximately 50% more KE. so if the momentum model was completely true as billed then the 30/30 would provide more damage, but it doesn't. neither does the 45/70 more than the 375 H/H. and this could've been answered quickly by anyone actually able to use the equations doled out in mcpherson's book. wound channel size is larger on the part of the 375 as well, so what gives? well, as we all know anything shot with any of the above in the vitals will die, but in an inelastic collision the momentum guys here are right in that not all of the KE is conserved but what does that mean? it means not 100% of the KE is conserved but much of it can be. any collision that does not conserve 100% of KE is by definition inelastic. that said, there's no perfectly inelastic collisions in the real world that 100% of momentum is conserved either. do it with the pool balls, the ballistic pendulum, or anyother model and you'll see momentum isn't 100% conserved either. the implication typically given on this forum is that just because KE isn't 100% conserved it's not playing a role but there's just waaaaay too much evidence the other way around.

neither model correctly predicts what happens in game or in a wound channel in living tissue. there's elements of truth in both, but the amount of people digging their heels in on one side or the other is just not correct. demonizing those that don't agree with flawed conclusions is just as incorrect.