What does energy mean to you? are ft lbs relevant?

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
What does energy mean to you? are ft lbs relevant?

Relevant to ammo manufacturers with regards to marketing.

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
What does energy mean to you? are ft lbs relevant?

It depends on what I’m shooting at. Is it a paper target, or a charging elephant? That question makes a big difference in what I think about ft-lbs energy.

Energy is nothing more than the ability to do work. Ft.Lbs. of energy with respect to firearms is like horsepower with respect to motorized vehicles: it all depends on what kind of work you want to do. If you want to get somewhere fast are you going to pick a 400 hp 'Vette or a 400 hp Mack truck? On the other hand, if you need to move a few hundred tons of gravel, you're likely going to make a different choice. And if you want to do both, you might compromise on a 400 hp pick-up. The same thought processes should be involved in thinking about Ft.Lbs.: what kind of work do you want the bullet launched from the firearm to perform, and what compromises are you willing to make.

Cheers, Al

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
What does energy mean to you? are ft lbs relevant?

Ft-lb of energy are only unimportant to those that have no clue what energy is all about.

quote:

Energy is nothing more than the ability to do work.

And if one wants to create a hole in an elk it takes some work....aka energy....and if one wants a bullet to expand it again takes work.....aka energy.....and if one wants to do it 400 yards away it again requires work.....aka energy.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
What does energy mean to you? are ft lbs relevant?

Ft-lb of energy are only unimportant to those that have no clue what energy is all about.

quote:

Energy is nothing more than the ability to do work.

And if one wants to create a hole in an elk it takes some work....aka energy....and if one wants a bullet to expand it again takes work.....aka energy.....and if one wants to do it 400 yards away it again requires work.....aka energy.

Vapo, your answer is so good, it probably Killed the thread.

Same-E-Same for Deer as the Elk. It is not all about placement, though placement is real important.

Energy means how much power the bullet has. My 458 Lott moves a 500gr bullet at 2363 ft per second. and that bullet has 6235 pounds of Energy.

To a certain extent, energy figures are relevant, but they're far from an end-all in determining a cartridge's effectiveness on game. A .223 has around 1200 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, and so does a .44 magnum...which one would you rather shoot a pissed off bear with?

the ability to get out of bed this morning and face another day of winter

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
the ability to get out of bed this morning and face another day of winter

You guys in Minnesota deserve all the winter you get.....then it's mosquito season!

BTW....it takes work to swat mosquitos....aka energy!

ftlbs don't kill game.. bullets passing through the animal, causing tissue and systems damage does.

the ONLY comparison that is reasonable for ft-lbs is roughly in the same caliber and roughly at the same speed ... comparing a 338 win to a 338-06 for example ... comparing a 375 hh to a 22-7remmag, which may have simular energies, is a fallacy.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
ftlbs don't kill game.. bullets passing through the animal, causing tissue and systems damage does.

and just what do we think causes damage if it isn't energy?.......a bullet with no velocity isn't going to kill even a mosquito!

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
ftlbs don't kill game.. bullets passing through the animal, causing tissue and systems damage does.

the ONLY comparison that is reasonable for ft-lbs is roughly in the same caliber and roughly at the same speed ... comparing a 338 win to a 338-06 for example ... comparing a 375 hh to a 22-7remmag, which may have simular energies, is a fallacy.

That is worth repeating.

For more widely differing cartridges I've taken to using momentum as a yardstick. I may get corrected here in a second, but I think it is a better indication of penetration which is what gets the bullet to the vitals.

Dean

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
are ft lbs relevant?

YES roger

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
What does energy mean to you? are ft lbs relevant?

Ft-lb of energy are only unimportant to those that have no clue what energy is all about.

quote:

Energy is nothing more than the ability to do work.

And if one wants to create a hole in an elk it takes some work....aka energy....and if one wants a bullet to expand it again takes work.....aka energy.....and if one wants to do it 400 yards away it again requires work.....aka energy.

A bullet strike is an inelastic collision, energy is not conservered in an inelastic collision, momentum is conservered in all collisions.
To rate lethality in an inelastic collision is an exercise in futillity.

Frontal area, hydraulic pressure (a function of velocity) and momentum are what cause and determine the wound channel not energy.

Example: my .338 Lapua with a 300 grain bullet at 2,800 FPS has 5,222 FPE. A .458 with a 500 grain bullet at 2,100 FPS has 4,896 FPE. Anyone here believe that a 300 grain solid from the Lapua will make a wound channel as large as the .458 will in an Elephant's skull? If you do then join vapodog in the corner.

quote:

Originally posted by maki:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
ftlbs don't kill game.. bullets passing through the animal, causing tissue and systems damage does.

the ONLY comparison that is reasonable for ft-lbs is roughly in the same caliber and roughly at the same speed ... comparing a 338 win to a 338-06 for example ... comparing a 375 hh to a 22-7remmag, which may have simular energies, is a fallacy.

That is worth repeating.

For more widely differing cartridges I've taken to using momentum as a yardstick. I may get corrected here in a second, but I think it is a better indication of penetration which is what gets the bullet to the vitals.

Dean

Refreshing to read posts that "Get It"

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
are ft lbs relevant?

YES roger

Kinetic energy is simply a calculation of mass in motion, nothing more and nothing less

quote:

Kinetic energy is simply a calculation of mass in motion, nothing more and nothing less

Well, actually that is not true, completely. The calculation of mass in motion is MOMENTUM, kenetic energy is the force (work) needed to put and maintain that mass in motion (momentum).

As to their relavence, well, it is relative. Anyone can compare apples and oranges and say that they are different while the next guy begs to differ because they are both the same....fruit. To me they become less and less relavent when you add variables like target (animal) construction vs. bullet construction vs. bullet placement.

To me energy is only relavent since I consider it "the effort it takes me to get off my fat ass, get close enough, and only take a shot that does not matter if it came from a 300RUM or a 30-30." At least in my simplistic terms.

Here's the scenario:

Two vehicles are both traveling at 100mph, one is a Honda Hybrid, the other is a Mack Truck. They are both the same width and the concrete wall is 3 feet high. They both accidentally, of course, run into the concrete wall that is 3 feet thick. Which one causes the most damage?

Different scenario:

A Rhinoceroous is running away from you and your PH. You are shooting a .30-06 and your PH is shooting a .500NE. The Rhino is traveling at 10mph running. At what point does the .30-06 have more kinetic (effective) energy than a .500NE? Also consider than you are shooting a 180gr round nose and your PH is shooting a 580gr solid.

There is a point where the .30-06 has more kinetic energy. At what distance will that be?

For all you physicist nerds, here's your problem for the evening. I'm too ignorant to figure it out, without going to the internet for help.

Decades and decades ago (early 20th Century) the US Army found that the ability of a bullet to kill is directly related to the amount of tissue damage and that tissue damage is directly related to the kinetic energy of the bullet when it strikes. The US Army is well accepted by many worldwide for its experience and expertise in the area of killing - that is, only when absolutely necessary.

It takes work (i.e., energy) to cause tissue damage. Getting that energy into the vital organs takes penetration - hence, penetration with abundant kinetic energy equates to death and the more of both the better for quick humane kills.

Bottomline: use a premium bullet fired accurately and at high velocity.

Regards, AIU

Fact is if one has no kinetic energy there is no motion. Fact also is that there is a VERY small amount of energy transfer in an inelastic collision. There is always a momentumk transfer. Hydraulic pressure is also created when the bullet strikes an animal


As to the comparison of the 30-06 to the 500 Nitro the 500 will outclass the 30-06 in all of the improtant factors (frontal area, momentum,bullet mass)

A ballistics pendelum was used to find the velocity of a projectile. The pendelum was shot and the arc the pendelum swung was measured with the bullet wieght know the distance the pendelum swung gave the momentum transfer, from this info the velocity is then figured and then and only then can the energy be CALCULATED

m The bullet with the most momentum will swing the pendelum the greater distance, not the bullet with the most energy. Energy is not conserved in an inelastic collision, most of the energy is transformed into other forms of energy mostly thermal

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
ftlbs don't kill game.. bullets passing through the animal, causing tissue and systems damage does.

and just what do we think causes damage if it isn't energy?.......a bullet with no velocity isn't going to kill even a mosquito!

yes, that's momentum.. ME means NOTHING outside of comparing like calibers.. a 458 lott, at 5000 ft-lb is NOT going to move a 1lb weight 5000 feet... and won't move 5000 lb 1 ft ... that's as STUPID as people saying a shoulder fired, non exploding rifle (hunting rifle) can "knock" a bear/deer/buffalo over ...

a shoulder 5000 ftlbs in a 22 is not going to impress a buffalo .. yet a 458 lott will give it something to (death) bellow about

me is useless in comparing dissimular bullets and calibers

WOW!!! Good night John Boy !! roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
are ft lbs relevant?

YES roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
WOW!!! Good night John Boy !! roger

You've really added to the discussion

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Vapo, your answer is so good, it probably Killed the thread.

Same-E-Same for Deer as the Elk. It is not all about placement, though placement is real important.

SSR

quote:

Originally posted by Cross L:

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Vapo, your answer is so good, it probably Killed the thread.

Same-E-Same for Deer as the Elk. It is not all about placement, though placement is real important.

SSR

I think Hot Core assumed the thread would be rational!

Me I'm gonna go load me up some erg,s and go kill something.



SSR

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by Cross L:

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Vapo, your answer is so good, it probably Killed the thread.

Same-E-Same for Deer as the Elk. It is not all about placement, though placement is real important.

SSR

I think Hot Core assumed the thread would be rational!

Rational?? With inacurate BS answer that you 2 post

If a pickup truck hits you a two MPH you may get a bruise or an abrasion as it bumps you out of the way, but its HUGE amount of momentum causes very little damage.

If you were struck by a 55 grain bullet from a .223 traveling at 2500 MPH, even though its momentum is negligible compared to the pickup truck, you would be seriously or fatally injured.

A hunting bullet must have adequate momentum to penetrate to the vital organs. After that it's all about energy. How much momentum you need depends on whether your target is a ground squirrel or a cape buffalo. But having more momentum than is necessary for adequate penetration is like adding a load of concrete to the back of the pickup truck that hits you -- it gives it more momentum, but no additional trauma.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
If a pickup truck hits you a two MPH you may get a bruise or an abrasion as it bumps you out of the way, but its HUGE amount of momentum causes very little damage.

If you were struck by a 55 grain bullet from a .223 traveling at 2500 MPH, even though its momentum is negligible compared to the pickup truck, you would be seriously or fatally injured.

and yet an arrow, with ~100 ft-lb of energy routinely does clean through deer.. while a 22mag wouldn't

trucks and guns have no relevence in discussion...

other than the 223.. or 50bmg, hitting a truck going 2 mph will not be STOPPED.. it may be damaged, but its not going to be suddenly halted

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
are ft lbs relevant?

YES roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
WOW!!! Good night John Boy !! roger

You've really added to the discussion

You certainly have a marvelous grasp of the obvious. roger

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
If a pickup truck hits you a two MPH you may get a bruise or an abrasion as it bumps you out of the way, but its HUGE amount of momentum causes very little damage.

If you were struck by a 55 grain bullet from a .223 traveling at 2500 MPH, even though its momentum is negligible compared to the pickup truck, you would be seriously or fatally injured.

A hunting bullet must have adequate momentum to penetrate to the vital organs. After that it's all about energy. How much momentum you need depends on whether your target is a ground squirrel or a cape buffalo. But having more momentum than is necessary for adequate penetration is like adding a load of concrete to the back of the pickup truck that hits you -- it gives it more momentum, but no additional trauma.

It is obvious that you have absolutely no concept of the differences between an inelastic collision and an elastic collision.

quote:

Originally posted by maki:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
ftlbs don't kill game.. bullets passing through the animal, causing tissue and systems damage does.

the ONLY comparison that is reasonable for ft-lbs is roughly in the same caliber and roughly at the same speed ... comparing a 338 win to a 338-06 for example ... comparing a 375 hh to a 22-7remmag, which may have simular energies, is a fallacy.

That is worth repeating.

For more widely differing cartridges I've taken to using momentum as a yardstick. I may get corrected here in a second, but I think it is a better indication of penetration which is what gets the bullet to the vitals.

Dean

Exactly!!

Energy is the ability to do work. Momentum is the ability of an object to continue in it's direction of travel. For the most part, you don't need a lot of momentum on a deer but you do on a moose in order to get to the vitals. All else being equal, a heavier object (ie. more mass) travelling at the same speed as a lighter one will have more momentum and thus penetrate a large animal easier. BTW, weight & mass are not the same.
Bear in Fairbanks

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
are ft lbs relevant?

YES roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
WOW!!! Good night John Boy !! roger

You've really added to the discussion

You certainly have a marvelous grasp of the obvious. roger

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
are ft lbs relevant?

YES roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
WOW!!! Good night John Boy !! roger

You've really added to the discussion

You certainly have a marvelous grasp of the obvious. roger

I laughed at that too......but decided to just smile a bit and let it go....

We have had a few worthless threads here on AR but this one takes the cake.....l

Mass times vel squared means nothing but mass times velocity does???.....

I'm surprised that Warrior, Alf and Gerard have not chimed in to set everyone straight and attach meaning to it!!!!!maybe they are too darn busy spinning their own thread about SD!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
What does energy mean to you? are ft lbs relevant?

about as much as sectional density, not a great deal.
momentum and projectile construction is more important.

H&K created the MP7 PDW and 4.6x30mm because it penetrates body armor better than the higher energy-larger bore pistol cartridges fired from the H&K MP5.

100yd Penetration tests with 257Roberts/100tsx 3200 mv and .358win/200gn Northfork 2650mv into bone inpregnated media, resulted in:
100tsx penetrating 21"
200NF penetrating 14"
.....despite the 200NF having more whoppi Do energy.

A high vel. 160gn monometal is more capable/versatile than a 220gnSP in .300magnum.

quote:

What does energy mean to you? are ft lbs relevant?

Well, I haven't had much energy for several years, but I do have the feet and I do have the pounds. So what's up with that?


Okay, really, I do think energy is relevant when you're referring to terminal ballistics but it's not easy to put into perspective. And a lot of shooters/hunters don't have the patience/desire to put it into perspective. I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence when I say this, but some people just don't care for the details.
I think energy can tell us quite a bit, actually. I'm probably by myself on this one, but I think energy can be used to estimate penetration. (Although energy by itself isn't going to do it.) It's also a good predictor of how much damage is done, or isn't done, inside a target.
The explanation for penetration is easy to show. We know that in English units energy is represented by the unit foot-pounds, in other words foot times pounds of force. So this unit is, very conveniently, comprised of a unit of distance times a unit of force. If we know the energy and can determine the resisting force of our target against the bullet, we should get the penetration depth. And that formula is, very simply:

Distance = kinetic energy / resisting force

But it's coming up with the resisting force that's the tricky part.

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:

Distance = kinetic energy / resisting force

But it's coming up with the resisting force that's the tricky part.

There are several reasons why this is incorrect. First off is that Kinetic Energy is not the primary driver when it comes to penetration, MOMENTUM is.

A 55 grain .22 caliber bullet at 3,600 FPS has a calculated 1,583 FPE but only 28.29 pound feet of momentum. A 360 grain .45 caliber bullet from a .454 at 1,400 FPS has a calculated energy of 1,567 FPE, yet produces 72 pounds feet of momentum. We know from expereince that the 360 grain .45 caliber bullet will out penetrate the 55 grain .22 caliber bullet at 3,600 FPS despite having less kinetic energy.

Basing any terminal ballistics fromula on kinetic energy will always give incorrect answers and always has.

Energy is an internet topic for those long on wind and short on experience.