I set up the test the same way as last time, wet news print covered with 4 layers of denium





Recovered bullets along with the pentration depths. The Remington JHP is the value Pack in 200Rd. boxes from Wal Mart



The last time that I performed this test the 230 grain JHP Corbon +P load, the hollow point pluged and did not open. This time the bullet fragmented and had VERY little expaansion..All pieces of the bullet were found together, (touching)


The nest picture shows the hole blown by the 41 Mag with the 170 grain JHC buffalo Bore Factory load at 1536 FPS out of my 4" S&W

The hole above the large 41 hole is the 45 ACP

Dang, that 170 grain Buffalo Bore .41 mag load looks to be lethal! You've tested these same loads in other mediums, which one seems to be the best all-arounder in .45 ACP?

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
Dang, that 170 grain Buffalo Bore .41 mag load looks to be lethal! You've tested these same loads in other mediums, which one seems to be the best all-arounder in .45 ACP?

I believe that the Tarus Hex Bullet (the same as the Corbon DPX) is at the top of the food cahin in the 45 ACP when comparied to the other JHPs that are available.. I chronographed it last week at 1117 FPS. The XPB never fragments and is always one of the better pentrators even on autobody doors

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
I set up the test the same way as last time, wet news print covered with 4 layers of denium

The nest picture shows the hole blown by the 41 Mag with the 170 grain JHC buffalo Bore Factory load at 1536 FPS out of my 4" S&W

The hole above the large 41 hole is the 45 ACP

The bullet did not make that big hole, it was the energy transfer from the bullet that made that.

How in the world does that copper bullet penetrate like bullets that weigh 25% more than it does???

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
The bullet did not make that big hole, it was the energy transfer from the bullet that made that.

Redhawk, don't !! When you , it quickly turns into .......

LOL!! Touche!

The big-bore rifle guys have been using lighter weight monometal bullets with great success for years.

"Bullet Penetration Modeling Rhe Dynamics And The Incapacitatiom Resulting From Wound Trauma"

By, Duncan MacPhearson

Chapter One Page 7

One mans theory... just because it in a book does not make it fact..

Tell me what made that big hole, not the 41 cal hole but the hole you can stick your fist in....

Not a theory, but a fact.... Study a little more.. Energy is conserved and always transfers as heat that is a fact also..

Here we go again........

You know, I have shot animals with my .416 and it's whopping 5,136 ft-lbs of muzzle energy, and it doesn't shock them, make them jump up, knock them off their feet, or scream "ouch". Even less so with my .458 Lott and its nearly 3-tons of muzzle energy. So, I don't know how those piddly M.E. levels we get out of our handguns are of much if any significance. M.E. is something you calculate with a formula and not a real accurate measurement of a cartridge's capabilities -- IMHO.

Let the war begin.......

Pondoro Taylor gave little, if any credence to muzzle energy.

I believe it's just another gimmick used by those trying to sell ammo and firearms; kinda like the hair-lipped toothbrush salesman with the chips & "dip".

You leave out the most important factor, bullet construction. The construction of a bullet determines how it will and how much energy gets transferred. Also the velocity at which the projectile is driven also plays a factor in the equation.

Not starting a war, I just don't agree 100% that the energy counts for nothing.

Duncan MacPhearson, recieved from MIT both a BS & MS in Mechanical Engineering Honors Course at MIT in 1956. In 1959 he developed a new guidence technique and the equations that were used to guide the Mercury Astomauts into orbit on the Atlas Launch vehcile, These equations were modified under his supervision to control the Gemini launches and modified by others for the Appollo launches.
In the late 60s Mr. MacPhearson broadened his activities to Systems Engineering and has worked in this capacity ever since that time. These systems engineering activities were not primarly related to trajectory dynamics but provided the background in other engineering disciplines that was required to derive the bullet pentration model


Redhawk, can you provide your qualifications that is the basis of your contention that Mr. Macphearson does not know and or understand the relationship between different forms of energy and how they are transfered?

The test results look a lot like others that have been done in wet news print. Doesn't look like any new info here.

I personally have tested bullets in these type of test 30 plus years ago.

If one reads Marshall@Sanow one well see the same type of results in wet paper.

I wouldn't want to be shot with any of the above bullets.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
Duncan MacPhearson, recieved from MIT both a BS & MS in Mechanical Engineering Honors Course at MIT in 1956. In 1959 he developed a new guidence technique and the equations that were used to guide the Mercury Astomauts into orbit on the Atlas Launch vehcile, These equations were modified under his supervision to control the Gemini launches and modified by others for the Appollo launches.
In the late 60s Mr. MacPhearson broadened his activities to Systems Engineering and has worked in this capacity ever since that time. These systems engineering activities were not primarly related to trajectory dynamics but provided the background in other engineering disciplines that was required to derive the bullet pentration model


Redhawk, can you provide your qualifications that is the basis of your contention that Mr. Macphearson does not know and or understand the relationship between different forms of energy and how they are transfered?

I don't need a freekin degree to know something, and hell if he did the study in the 1950's I would not be boasting his findings.

I know a lot of people with degrees and that does not mean they know everything.

We are talking bullets, energy etc, not launching rockets here. BIG DIFFERANCE in my opinion. Maybe you need to quit reading so much and just get back to the basic's of shooting. I think you put way to much thought into all of this. .

quote:

I don't need a freekin degree to know something, and hell if he did the study in the 1950's I would not be boasting his findings.

I know a lot of people with degrees and that does not mean they know everything.

We are talking bullets, energy etc, not launching rockets here. BIG DIFFERANCE in my opinion. Maybe you need to quit reading so much and just get back to the basic's of shooting. I think you put way to much thought into all of this. .

Lets see your reading and comprehensive skills are definately lacking. If you concluded that his work was done in the 50s. Even if it was done in the 1600s the facts of science would not and do not change. In fact his work with the help of Dr. Martin Fackler (in reguards to proving the model) was done in the early 90s and the book was copy righted in 1994

I see that your qualifications for dissagreement is "I don't need a freekin degree to know something". quite an impressive set of credentials, I must say


Apparently you did not read all of my post as I clearly stated the following "In the late 60s Mr. MacPhearson broadened his activities to Systems Engineering and has worked in this capacity ever since that time. These systems engineering activities were not primarly related to trajectory dynamics but provided the background in other engineering disciplines that was required to derive the bullet pentration model"


I hope this clears up those points of missunderstanding...

Sargeant-Sabre, you can't use jacketed lead thinking with all copper bullets .Usually they make a clean cookie cutter hole in car doors -not at all like the jacketed lead holes as the photos show. And they can expand after penetrating steel !! ...I don't subscribe to the "energy" theories at all .The bullet has to penetrate to do damage to critical organs -bigger hole more damage .40s and 45s work very well !!

Woa, boys!! Settle down. This can be discussed without turning ugly.

quote:

Originally posted by mete:
Sargeant-Sabre, you can't use jacketed lead thinking with all copper bullets .Usually they make a clean cookie cutter hole in car doors -not at all like the jacketed lead holes as the photos show. And they can expand after penetrating steel !! ...I don't subscribe to the "energy" theories at all .The bullet has to penetrate to do damage to critical organs -bigger hole more damage .40s and 45s work very well !!

The upper left hole and the middle hole on the on the lower left were made with the all copper bullets.


I agree totally with your analisis, at least that how it works in my experience...

jwp475, I am done with your bullshit again. My reading and comprehensive skills are far from lacking. I was entering this debate without trying to get personal, and you can't have a discussion with someone without doing so, so screw you. And as far as your phone calls to me, keep your bullshit to yourself. I don't have time for it.

You can keep shooting denim and new paper all your want, you will not show anyone any thing different than what we have seen for the past 30 years.

Gentlemen (and I use this term loosely -- rather, very loosely ), why the hostility? I understand both of your arguments, but they can be discussed without getting nasty. Come on now, this is a good discussion topic, but the wrong way to go about debating it. That said, I think ME is BS. I too used to buy into it and am a recent convert. I went back over my hunting experiences, and revisited kills with big-bore rifles that shame the ME figures of any and all big-bore handguns that are commercially loaded and you know what? All kills depended on shot placement to dispatch the animals targeted and all the foot-pounds of muzzle energy in the world didn't seem to have any effect whatsoever. Penetration is king in my book and you get this with a good flat-nosed bullet of a significant weight. I am over simplifying, but it's early and I'm only on my first cup of coffee........

Like I have said before, the Casull produces more ME than .475 Linebaugh. Loaded with a similarly constructed bullet and a weight relative to the caliber, the Casull doesn't kill any better than the .475, but it can be safely argued that the .475 kills better than the .454 despite the fact that it lacks the ME of the .454.

Okay, I will get off of my soap box now and I need more coffee........

Play nicely, kids!

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
jwp475, I am done with your bullshit again. My reading and comprehensive skills are far from lacking. [QUOTE]

Then you posted this.

[QUOTE] Originaly posted by Redhawk1 I don't need a freekin degree to know something, and hell if he did the study in the 1950's I would not be boasting his findings. We are talking bullets, energy etc, not launching rockets here. BIG DIFFERANCE in my opinion.

How you came away with that is quite confusing, thus my my thoughts..

I used to be one that believed in muzzle energy, but then it fell out of favor with me. My argument was, “How can the old 45-70 loads that generate 2000ft-lbs kill so much better than a .243 Win which also generates 2000ft-lbs of energy?†To me, that was THE smoking gun that debunked the muzzle energy theory. Then a couple of years ago, I was trying to calculate the amount of force an arrow generates when contacting bone or other hard surface. That activity led me right back to being a FIRM believer in energy transfer theory. Here’s why:

Newton’s Second Law of Motion states that Force = Mass x Acceleration. I wanted to know force, so I calculated the arrow’s mass, and then I calculated acceleration, from impact speed to rest (negative acceleration, a.k.a. deceleration). The thing that became readily apparent, was that the deceleration varied tremendously depending on how deep the arrow penetrated. If the arrow impacted the target at 280fps, but was stopped in 2 inches, the deceleration was very high. If the same arrow stopped in 12 inches, the deceleration was much less. I choose to work with an arrow impacting at 280fps and stopping in 12 inches. Now I could calculate force. The eureka moment was when I charted a bunch of calculations involving 12 inches of penetration, the Force was exactly equal to the Energy the arrow had at impact.

I then worked on what happens when the arrow only penetrated 6 inches, with all other factors being equal. The force exerted by the arrow was now double the energy the arrow had at impact. If I ran the calculations to where the arrow penetrated 24 inches, the force exerted by the arrow was exactly half of the energy the arrow had at impact. The formula turned out to be Force (lbs) = 12 x Impact Energy (ft-lbs) / Penetration (in.)

Bullet energy IS real, and it IS quantifiable, and you can use it to predict bullet performance on game. For instance, you’re using a .243, 100gr bullet at 3000fps. You’ve got approximately 2000ft-lbs of energy you can use in various ways. If you’re out after varmints, you’ll choose a lighter constructed bullet so that if fragments, thus reducing penetration. Ever wonder why the super fast lightweight bullets cause GHASTLY wounds? If you’re only getting 3†of penetration with 2000 ft-lbs, you’re applying 8000lbs of force to the animal and the bullet (Newton’s Third Law of Motion stating for every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction). In other words, if you apply 8000lbs of force to the critter, you’re also applying 8000lbs of force to the bullet. Lightly constructed bullets blow apart with a shock loading of 8000lbs. Guaranteed!! Now, back to the old 45-70 shooting a 405gr bullet at 1500fps. (Yes, I know they go much faster now days) Again, you’ve got 2000ft-lbs to work with. Chances are you’ve got a thicker jacket on that bullet, maybe even a hard cast bullet. These bullets are MUCH stronger than varmint type bullets and will penetrate better also. Why don’t you get a ghastly wound with that 2000ft-lbs? Because now you’re applying the force over a longer deceleration period. If that bullet now penetrates 24†and comes to rest in the animal, you’ve only applied 1000lbs of force to the animal and bullet. It still kills very well, because now you’ve been able to slowly bleed off the energy so that the bullet can reach and destroy vital organs. Try that .243 on a big critter and the results will be less than spectacular UNLESS you’re able to use a bullet that can penetrate just as far into the animal as the 45-70. In that case, you may well have a bullet that does just as good!!

Basically it boils down to this. In any round, you’ve got a measurable amount of energy which you can apply to a target. If you need to quickly dispatch of small animals, make that bullet stop VERY VERY fast. How? Use a lightly constructed bullet, and now you’ve got incredible amounts of force being applied. If you’ve really got to dig down deep to get into the vitals, you’d better pick a well constructed bullet than can hold together and slowly decelerate. And none of this is earth shattering news. People have been preaching bullet construction and matching it to your quarry for years and years. Now I know why, and I’ve got indisputable physics to back it up. You may choose to ignore bullet energy as some intangible marketing tool, but you’re only fooling yourself. It IS measurable, AND directly related to bullet performance, and game killing ability. How you choose to apply that energy will dictate actual on-game performance.

Mr. MacPhearson writes,
Page 7 foot note;

"Many others havve simply assumed that energy is the dominant effect in WTI; this is even more simplistic than the attempt to actually analyze the dynamics problem with energy relationships, and is no more successful. Note that there are ballistics problems where enrgy considerations are useful (the mostabvious is penetrtion of heavy tank armor); the point is that handgun bullet penetration in soft tissue is not one of them".


Page 7 & 8
"Any attempt to derive the effect of bullet impact in tissue using energy relationships is ill advised and wrong because the problem cannot be be analyzed that way andonly someone without the requisite technical background would try. Many individuals who have not gad the technical training have none the less heard of Newton's laws motion, but most of them aren't really familar with these laws and would be surprised to learn that Newton's laws describe forces and momentum transfer, not energy relationships. The dynamic variable that is cnserved in collisions is momentum; kinetic energy is not conserved in real collisions. but is transferd into thermal energy in a way that usually cannot be praciticaly modeled. The energy in collisions can be traced, but usually only by solving the dynamics by other means and then determining the energy flow".

quote:

Try that .243 on a big critter and the results will be less than spectacular UNLESS you’re able to use a bullet that can penetrate just as far into the animal as the 45-70.

A 243 bullet that penetrates as deep as a 45-70 will leave a much smaller wound channel even with the same 2000 FPE.

Another great example of the falicy of FPE to properly predict the wounding ability of different cartridges...

GEEZ. Now you guys are in outerspace with ROCKET SCIENCE.

JWP, I worked with rockets before switching to jet propulsion. Spent 20 years there. If you don't think "energy" is important to rockets or to planes, try deadsticking one of them back on to the pavement sometime. You'll be changing your attitude while you're traveling at such a "high velocity" with no "energy" behind you. We were concerned about rocket velocity only to the extent that we had provided enough ENERGY to reach our intended target. I can assure you, once we reached an intended target, ROCKET ENERGY was no longer a concern, rather that of the warhead leading the rocket. Why do you think we've switched back and forth with different rocket motors for space exploration? Why solid fuel boosters augmenting liquid fuel motors?

Have any of you had an x-ray lately? Do you know that during an x-ray, a solid particle of gamma radiation flies through your body at the "velocity" of light? You can't find a bullet anywhere close to a fraction of that. Yet the x-ray doesn't knock you down simply because it has no energy to be released inside your body. If it did, you'd disintegrate. If you doubt that, and no doubt some of you will, simply look at the "plasma guns" in development and see what happens when "energy" is carried at a high "velocity". It doesn't matter what any of you "buy into". The ammunition manufactures understand physics and any good ballistics chart is going to show you both velocity and energy at set distances. They aren't doing that for rocket scientists, but rather to give you some idea of what kind of ENERGY you can expect to be in the mail your bullet carries at specific distances. I do hope you 'll look at a few and see how both velocity and energy decrease directly with one another. Then compare bullet WEIGHTS and see how, at the same speeds and the same distances, the ENERGY changes.

jwp475:

The way I read those quotes...using energy relationships is not a good way to determine terminal performance...he is not saying energy is not a factor.

Energy has a velocity squared in it somewhere...momentum has velocity, both energy and momentum increase as velocity increases.

So...one can call it momentum, energy, or velocity, but the more you have (given the same caliber and appropriate bullet construction) the more trauma you are going to impart.

Most have seen the difference between a 22 long rifle and 22-250 on small animals...an impressive difference. Your above test with a lighter bullet and smaller caliber creating more trauma supports velocity being a factor in trauma. If someone wants to call it energy, he is,at the least, partially correct...why quibble about semantics. dvnv

quote:

Any attempt to derive the effect of bullet impact in tissue using energy relationships is ill advised and wrong because the problem cannot be be analyzed that way and only someone without the requisite technical background would try.

The above quote by Mr. MacPhearson is realavent to this topic.

Mancannon is on the correct path when he began to convert to direct force. Direct force and the area that the force is distributed on is what gives the projectile the ability to damage (crush tissue) is directly related to the projectiles ability to wound. 2 Projectiles of different diameters (same bullet construction) having the same amount of kinetic energy will not create the same size wound. The larger diameter heavier projectile will crush a wider path of tissue and create a larger wound channel despite the fact that both projectiles have the same amount of energy.

In handguns which is what we are talking about. (in this section of the board) The velocity is not high enough to get secoundary wounding or tissue tearing caused by the tissue being stretched past its ellasticity. Handgun wounding is a direct factor of crushed tissue and a larger diameter heavier projectile always will produce the large wound even when a smaller diamete projectile has the same energy at handgun speeds ( assuming that both projectile are of the same consruction)..

ManCannon, I have been trying to convey that all along, it is a combination of speed, "bullet construction" and energy transfer that causes the wound cannel. It is not just one thing or two.

You made a very knowledgeable and understandable post. Thank you.

i never noticed Mancannon aluding to energy transfer, I believe that he spoke of direct applied force and the size of the wound channel in handguns is directly related to the area that the force is applied both in terms of diameter and lenght...

If a .243 bullet could be launched with as much energy as you guys have put into arguing on this thread, it would completely vaporize its target.

quote:

Originally posted by Sergeant_Sabre:
If a .243 bullet could be launched with as much energy as you guys have put into arguing on this thread, it would completely vaporize its target.

LOL!! You are absolutely correct!!

quote:

Originally posted by Sergeant_Sabre:
If a .243 bullet could be launched with as much energy as you guys have put into arguing on this thread, it would completely vaporize its target.

Now that's

My 41 mag shooting a flat point hard cast bullet at 1338 FPS and this is 914 FPE. My 500 JRH shootin a 440 Hard Cast Flat point cast at 950 FPS is 881 FPE. The 500 always creates a larger wound channel than does my 41 Mag despite the 41s advantage in FPE. FPE is a simplistic ballistic model that does not accurately predict a cartidges ability to create wound trauma incapacitation

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
i never noticed Mancannon aluding to energy transfer, I believe that he spoke of direct applied force and the size of the wound channel in handguns is directly related to the area that the force is applied both in terms of diameter and lenght...

Lets see your reading and comprehensive skills are definately lacking.

"The 500 always creates a larger wound channel than does my 41 Mag despite the 41s advantage in FPE."

Then why did your .41, 170 gr bullet do more damage to the newspaper than the .45s

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
My 41 mag shooting a flat point hard cast bullet at 1338 FPS and this is 914 FPE. My 500 JRH shootin a 440 Hard Cast Flat point cast at 950 FPS is 881 FPE. The 500 always creates a larger wound channel than does my 41 Mag despite the 41s advantage in FPE. FPE is a simplistic ballistic model that does not accurately predict a cartidges ability to create wound trauma incapacitation

You are so busy trying to convene everyone you are so smart and right, but you are blinded by any thing but what you believe.

The BULLET CONSTRUCTION has a lot to do with how much of a wound channel is made. A larger bullet is going to make a bigger hole if both bullets are constructed the same way.

If a bullet, is let say .500, according to you the force trauma comes from the actual bullet, it that was the case, the tissue damage would not be but a little over the diameter of the bullet, so let me ask you this question.

What causes the 3 to 4 inch wound channel?

Now lets use two bullets, both of the same weight and construction, (the exact same bullets) but change only the velocity.
Now your energy has dropped in one bullet over the other.
Shoot them both into a ballistic gel and see just how different the wound channel is.

Jack your 500 JHR up to 1400 fpe using your 440 gr. bullet and see the difference the energy makes in a ballistic gel.

What you fail to learn here is, it is not just one thing that makes a wound channel, it is a combination of them all.

Applied force is nothing without speed, take a car and stand in front of it, let off the break and the car will push you, now stand there and let the car hit you at 70 mph and the energy transferred to you body, will break every bone in your body. That is energy transfer on a large scale.

quote:

Originally posted by dvnv:
"The 500 always creates a larger wound channel than does my 41 Mag despite the 41s advantage in FPE."

Then why did your .41, 170 gr bullet do more damage to the newspaper than the .45s

lol... good one.

I think that is called energy transfer....

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:

quote:

Originally posted by dvnv:
"The 500 always creates a larger wound channel than does my 41 Mag despite the 41s advantage in FPE."

Then why did your .41, 170 gr bullet do more damage to the newspaper than the .45s

lol... good one.

I think that is called energy transfer....

Could it be that you are so blinded by your closed mindedness that your ar not willing to accept another concept??

There nothing else to accept.
But why can't you answer my simple questions, a man of you enfant wisdom and qualifications surly has the right answers!

I am dying to see your next post of cut and past and endless babbling...lol jk

Seriously, if you gave me some information that was believable, I would be open minded and willing to learning something new, but you discount energy as if it meant nothing.