Wait a minute, I want to see the formula!

quote:

Wait a minute, I want to see the formula!

I think I can cover that:

Thank you for injecting some more levity into this thread -- and some formula!

Whitworth, I try. God knows I try, but Stupid should hurt. I'm sorry. I've read and reread this post and JWP has done more bouncing around on positions than popcorn in a Jiffypop bag. This ain't rocketsurgery is it? I know the wildcatters push the envelope and the manufacturers load on the "safe" side, but somewhere in between or on either end, the only thing that matters is who gets there the "firstest with the mostest". Being shot with a BB would piss me off. Being shot with a .500 S&W Mag would mean that I pissed somebody off. Kinetic energy, potential energy, nuclear energy, solar energy, who gives a damn. Tell me a GOOD and SAFE load and I'm game to try it. I want the bullet to strike the target where the sights were setting. If it's low, I either decrease the bullet weight or increase the powder. If it's high, I increase the bullet weight or decrease the powder. OR PERHAPS A COMBINATION OF BOTH. Now can we bury this horse. He stinks already.

More gas to poor on the fire

I guess there is still a little bit of chance involved in shootouts too.

I watched Myth Busters last night where they shot a .50 BMG at a block of ballistic gell anchored in the bottom of a swimming pool. The armor piercing bullet never reached it. They figured it came apart in 14" of water. They had a big handful of fragments picked off the pool bottom.
Now I am not saying anything bad about the big .50 as it would have blown the dead terrorist into a million pieces but does go to show a good hardcast is better then a poor bullet that dumps it's energy and comes apart.
What happened to the woman, thank God she survived, can happen on an animal with the wrong bullet when only energy is considered.
Step up skull hardness to a buf or elephant and when the wrong bullet is used no matter how much energy the book says it has, you are in big trouble.
Energy by itself will not do the job. It seems as if everyone here has agreed that the energy must be put to work properly and the best use of it is deeper penetration and a larger primary wound channel. Any additional energy matched to the size of the game, is not needed and will not kill quicker. As game gets smaller and the gun gets stronger, the only result is more destroyed meat. This never means the animal will die faster except where it just explodes. If a deer swallowed a grenade it would be gone but if one went off near the deer it will be just as dead.
Balance guys, enough energy with the right boolits and caliber.
You can't equate what happens to a sparrow shot with a .220 Swift to an elephant shot with it.
I killed thousands of rabbits with a slingshot, shoots right through them. I would not hunt deer with one and I would not hunt rabbits with a .458 either. I shot a rabbit in the head with my .44 once and only got the back legs but I have never shot a deer in half with one. On the other hand I have had poor results with bullets that opened too fast on deer and much faster kills with boolits that went all the way through. Lost energy that was not needed.
I don't know why this arguement keeps going on?

bfrshooter, if you go back to the first thread and also in this thread. I said that a long time ago. It is a combination of bullet construction, speed, energy and shot placement.
Nothing fance about it.

Just what I have said all along, we agree on almost every post after a whole lot of discussion. As do all the other posters. It is just results that count and not book figures.

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
Whitworth, I try. God knows I try, but Stupid should hurt. .

I hope the pain subsides for you very soon...

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:
From cited text in previous post:

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 .

Addressing bold-faced comment: Hmpf! Well I'm just an old cornbread-eatin old Cajun Huguenot who has studied physics, so I guess I don't have the "requisite technical background", but I think McPherson has put his foot in it.

Kinetic energy does relate to terminal ballistics, and I can easily prove it.


Now recall that force = mass x acceleration.

So: 170/7000/32.174 x -1174321 = -886 pounds (force) or 886 pounds of resisting force.

Now, I don't know if I'm the only one who's noticed this, but it does seem that bullets of a high amount of resisting force (relatively) seem to have a greater amount of cavitation. But maybe that's just the way I see it...

Force is figured in Newtons, I am not sure what you are figuring it in here. 1 Newton is acceleration in meters times the Mass in Kilograms and you are not using either.

So let's do it in Newtons.. 170 grains equals .011038961038961028961038961 kilograms. the velocity of 1536 FPS equals approximately 462.0938 MS

.011038961038961028961038961 X 462.0938 = 5.101 Newtons

I am not sure what unit your equation equals

Energy is a matter of massand the velocity squared - it is NOT meaningless, it is not the be all and end all of shooting a bullet into an animal to kill it.
If you have a 22 caliber 100 gr bullet and a 45 caliber 500 grain bullet each with 2000 ft lbs of energy which one will kill a bear faster?
Pick any energy level you want - the larger bullet will almost always kill faster.
which would you rather be hit in your center of mass by, a .5 gram needle or a 5 kilogram lead ball at 1000 ft lbs of energy? You probably wouldn't feel the needle but that lead ball would probably kill you.

quote:

Originally posted by PaulS:
If you have a 22 caliber 100 gr bullet and a 45 caliber 500 grain bullet each with 2000 ft lbs of energy which one will kill a bear faster?

Paul, the larger bullet will most certainly create the larger wound channel, but this is not a function of energy. A .22-250 creates more muzzle energy than a .475 Linebaugh, but the .475 is a much more effective killer on big game, so where does ME enter the picture, when the slower moving big bullet will penetrate a lot more deeply than the hyper-velocity smaller projectile? Food for thought.

Newtons and Pounds are the same thing. Force.

1 pound-force = 4.4482216 Newtons

Not the same thing at all.
1n (Newton force) is Mass (in killograms) 1 Killogram X Acceleratiion in (Meters per secound) 1 meter equals 1 Newton

pound(mass)and pound-force are not the same thing. pound-force and newtons are both measurements of force.

It gets confusing sometimes, but there is a difference. I'm going to have to get into my statics, dynamics and physics textbooks for some definitions that can be referenced, but I'm not doing it tonight.

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:
pounds and pound-force are not the same thing. pound-force and newtons are both measurements of force.

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:
pound(mass)and pound-force are not the same thing. pound-force and newtons are both measurements of force.

It gets confusing sometimes, but there is a difference. I'm going to have to get into my statics, dynamics and physics textbooks for some definitions that can be referenced, but I'm not doing it tonight.

Is this a homework assignment or extra-credit, MS Hitman??

JWP,

I am sorry to have to contradict you, but Newtons are force. Pounds are force. It is an unfortunate feature of language that common usage uses the same word "Pounds" in reference to Pounds Mass and Pounds Force.


JWP475 Posted:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not the same thing at all.
1n (Newton force) is Mass (in killograms) 1 Killogram X Acceleratiion in (Meters per secound) 1 meter equals 1 Newton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One Newton is that force required to accelerate one kilogram at a rate of one meter per second every second.

One pound of force is that force required to accelerate one slug at a rate of one foot per second per second. ("Slug" is the English system's common measurement of mass. In a gravitational field of 1 g, a slug exerts 32.2 pounds of force on its support.)

Do you think we should start a new thread to discuss Newtonian Physics? I mean, what has the unit of measurement got to do with terminal ballistics? It makes no difference if a bullet weighs 1 ounce, 437.5 grains or has a mass of 28.35 grams. That only proves I can do arithmetic. A bullet that weighs one ounce (on Earth) has a mass of 38.35 grams or 437.5 grains. All the same.

Newtons are force. Pounds are force. Pounds are just bigger (more forceful) than Newtons.

Respectfully,
Lost Sheep (Larry)

By the way, disrespectfully, Kilograms are spelled with one "l" unless you are trying to terminate the metric system of weights and measures. In that case, "Kill"ograms might be correct.

Nah Whitworth, just like to cite my references. Besides, the authors have some good definitions and there is no point in re-inventing the wheel.

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:
Nah Whitworth, just like to cite my references. Besides, the authors have some good definitions and there is no point in re-inventing the wheel.

I agree! Imagine backing one's assertions with facts!