quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
Always use enough gun.

I lean toward - Always usee "more than" enough gun!

I sure miss Big Mortie. Did the squills end up getting him or was it a Reduced Blue Dot Load that he was testin' for Sectional Enermentum?

I heard Big Mama accidently rolled over him in her sleep. An American icon lost to a hillbilly tradgedy.

this is starting to sound more and more like one of those "Nocturnal Emissions" every post.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Ackley Improved User:
But what do you do with all that foreplay, length, and width, if you get shot down? Seems like a big waste of kinetic energy and momentum...and time for a cold shower.

I don't know about shot down but in Naval terms If one's best intentions are torpedoed it's all to the pump.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
I heard Big Mama accidently rolled over him in her sleep. An American icon lost to a hillbilly tradgedy.

Probably is the way he would have chosen to go too.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
I heard Big Mama accidently rolled over him in her sleep. An American icon lost to a hillbilly tradgedy.

I have proof of that!!!!!

quote:

I have proof of that!!!!!

Jeepers! Certainly looks like there's more mass there than velocity!

According to the minimum momentum formula in another thread, that guy was dead before she landed.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackley Improved User:
But now that we know that foreplay is the most important factor in getting penetration, is it width or length that matter most in creating maximum effect? Regards, AIU

Gidday Guys,

As those that know, long and thin goes too far in, short and thick does the trick.

Happy Hunting

Hamish

quote:

As those that know, long and thin goes too far in, short and thick does the trick.

Even here increased SD is useless.

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
"An increase in SD leads to less energy transfer to target per unit distance penetrated and thus deeper penetration. The lower the SD the shallower the penetration, the bigger the energy dump to target and the bigger the temporary cavity." ....... Karl Sellier (Shusswaffen und Shusswerkungen)

Warrior

So that's why a .535 round ball @ close range dumps deer like nothing else I've ever used.

quote:

Even here increased SD is useless.

What a farce.
SD can never be useless, it is ever present.

Warrior

Numbers are nice, but they are no substitue for a good critter autopsy.

From what I've understood so far:

I don't think there are necessarily any numbers in sectional enermentum. If it works, it has a good sectional enermentum. Doesn't matter if the sectional density is low/high, the momentum, the energy. You don't even have to worry about penetration depth. If it has worked, then it's penetrated to the right depth. You can apply numbers to the concept, but these aren't necessary.

OK, have I understood it correctly?

http://forums.accuratereloadin...631014251#8631014251

Warrior

quote:

You don't even have to worry about penetration depth. If it has worked, then it's penetrated to the right depth.

Glenn, That's my take as well. Wound up with three kids that way.

quote:

Originally posted by Mekong:

quote:

You don't even have to worry about penetration depth. If it has worked, then it's penetrated to the right depth.

Glenn, That's my take as well. Wound up with three kids that way.

Congratulations! I only had the one. The problem may have been not enough mass.

But the one I bagged is a trophy!

With little hope BUT AN EFFORT NON THE LESS, it would be a breath of fresh air if some around here would stop using sectional density in equating penetration. 3 elements and 3 elements only can help (I say help because it is a +/- solution regardless of the substrate consistency) determine penetration. 1) Velocity at impact 2) Mass at impact and 3) Bullet transduction (final shape and position) at impact. PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION I DON'T CARE WHO YOU QUOTE, TAKE THE CLASSES YOURSELF AND SEE HOW FOR YOURSELF!! section density was lost in the transfer from exterior to terminal.

Pete Sakes!!!!

I can't believe I waited until the thread was onto (or should I say 'into'?) page 2 before reading! Well done gentlemen!

friar

quote:

it would be a breath of fresh air if some around here would stop using sectional density in equating penetration

Oh, I've stopped using it altogether, WhatThe. That's because I joined the sectional enermentum camp. (They are a much jollier bunch and the food's not bad.) Sectional enermentum has only a passing resemblance to sectional density. The "sectional" part only refers to a statistical cross section, which is always 100%. In other words, it never fails. "Enermentum" is a kind of a zen thing. Not easy to define. Either you get it or you don't. But it determines the success rate of a cartridge for its purpose.

For instance, you've shot a hippo in the sweet spot with a cartridge, regardless of caliber, but it fails to stop him. Not only will you be turned into hippo toe jam, but your bullet has proven to have a very poor sectional enermentum.

SOG,

I believe you have defined it very well.One could almost say that enermentum is a measure of ballistic karma.

The chap in Kenya who killed two eles with a 22 didnt have much sectional but damn sure had TONS of enermentum.



SSR

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:
...3) Bullet transduction (final shape and position) at impact. ...

Never heard anything called that, but I do know the Sectional Density begins Reducing as the Bullet begins Expanding. Then there is a Magical Transition(with a Partition) where the good old, Sectional Density levels out and the remaining Energy just keeps it plowing right along, making nice Exits.

Nothing Zen about that at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
I heard Big Mama accidently rolled over him in her sleep. An American icon lost to a hillbilly tradgedy.

Probably is the way he would have chosen to go too.

Just thinking about Easter approaching. Do you think Mortie might make it back???

Sure looked like a whole lot of Sectional Density landed on him though.

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:

quote:

it would be a breath of fresh air if some around here would stop using sectional density in equating penetration

Oh, I've stopped using it altogether, WhatThe. That's because I joined the sectional enermentum camp. (They are a much jollier bunch and the food's not bad.) Sectional enermentum has only a passing resemblance to sectional density. The "sectional" part only refers to a statistical cross section, which is always 100%. In other words, it never fails. "Enermentum" is a kind of a zen thing. Not easy to define. Either you get it or you don't. But it determines the success rate of a cartridge for its purpose.

For instance, you've shot a hippo in the sweet spot with a cartridge, regardless of caliber, but it fails to stop him. Not only will you be turned into hippo toe jam, but your bullet has proven to have a very poor sectional enermentum.

How do I join? Do I get a membership card? An iron on patch? I know all about "enementum" and it's effects on the not so bright. It's kind of like using a football bat at a hockey game where they are using hockey clubs and in Florida where they use golf sticks and soccer rackets. I even worked on one. They are not American standard or even metric but rather "ener-stan-metric" and can be difficult to find. I even had to have my machinist make me some tools using his left handed drill press and gasoline powered magnifying glass.

quote:

Sure looked like a whole lot of Sectional Density landed on him though.

And that is precisely where ENERMENTUM comes into play!

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:

quote:

it would be a breath of fresh air if some around here would stop using sectional density in equating penetration

Oh, I've stopped using it altogether, WhatThe. That's because I joined the sectional enermentum camp. (They are a much jollier bunch and the food's not bad.) Sectional enermentum has only a passing resemblance to sectional density. The "sectional" part only refers to a statistical cross section, which is always 100%. In other words, it never fails. "Enermentum" is a kind of a zen thing. Not easy to define. Either you get it or you don't. But it determines the success rate of a cartridge for its purpose.

For instance, you've shot a hippo in the sweet spot with a cartridge, regardless of caliber, but it fails to stop him. Not only will you be turned into hippo toe jam, but your bullet has proven to have a very poor sectional enermentum.

How do I join? Do I get a membership card? An iron on patch? I know all about "enementum" and it's effects on the not so bright. It's kind of like using a football bat at a hockey game where they are using hockey clubs and in Florida where they use golf sticks and soccer rackets. I even worked on one. They are not American standard or even metric but rather "ener-stan-metric" and can be difficult to find. I even had to have my machinist make me some tools using his left handed drill press and gasoline powered magnifying glass.

Now you have our program figured

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
In summary then, an increase in SD leads to less energy transfer to the target per unit distance penetrated, and thus deeper penetration. The lower the SD the shallower the penetration, but the bigger the energy dump cause a bigger temporary cavity.

In our current ballistic system, a higher SD value comes with more MOMENTUM and less ENERGY, and this is the point that Karl Sellier makes, and the important point being that we cannot make up lost momentum with more velocity and achieve the same terminal result.

Could it be that Karl Sellier has lost all his marbles?
Professor Karl Sellier, University of Bonn.

Warrior

PS: One of his publications:
Wound ballistics and the scientific background
Karl G. Sellier and Beat P. Kneubuehl.
Published 1994
A reference work used by forensic scientists.

This could only be plausible with identical bullet construction.

quote:

Originally posted by Clem:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warrior:
In summary then, an increase in SD leads to less energy transfer to the target per unit distance penetrated, and thus deeper penetration. The lower the SD the shallower the penetration, but the bigger the energy dump cause a bigger temporary cavity.

In our current ballistic system, a higher SD value comes with more MOMENTUM and less ENERGY, and this is the point that Karl Sellier makes, and the important point being that we cannot make up lost momentum with more velocity and achieve the same terminal result.

Could it be that Karl Sellier has lost all his marbles?
Professor Karl Sellier, University of Bonn.

Warrior

Karl never had any marbles to begin with. If you know him as well as I do, tell Him "Hammer-head" said so! He will know who you mean (me). Me, University Of Maryland. Campus City Physics Dept. PhD. Atomic Energy Lx: Nuclear Sciences.

And when you're done with that, tell him that he needs to specify cross-sectional influence of SD prior to disbursement into terminal mass. His readers are having problems distinguishing the two. Or better yet, don't even mention SD and substitute "area of mass" in its place.

By the way, Karl maintains much more academic credit that you have given him!

Can we keep this thread SD free? Please...

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:

quote:

it would be a breath of fresh air if some around here would stop using sectional density in equating penetration

Oh, I've stopped using it altogether, WhatThe. That's because I joined the sectional enermentum camp. (They are a much jollier bunch and the food's not bad.) Sectional enermentum has only a passing resemblance to sectional density. The "sectional" part only refers to a statistical cross section, which is always 100%. In other words, it never fails. "Enermentum" is a kind of a zen thing. Not easy to define. Either you get it or you don't. But it determines the success rate of a cartridge for its purpose.

For instance, you've shot a hippo in the sweet spot with a cartridge, regardless of caliber, but it fails to stop him. Not only will you be turned into hippo toe jam, but your bullet has proven to have a very poor sectional enermentum.

How do I join? Do I get a membership card? An iron on patch? I know all about "enementum" and it's effects on the not so bright. It's kind of like using a football bat at a hockey game where they are using hockey clubs and in Florida where they use golf sticks and soccer rackets. I even worked on one. They are not American standard or even metric but rather "ener-stan-metric" and can be difficult to find. I even had to have my machinist make me some tools using his left handed drill press and gasoline powered magnifying glass.

Ah, looks like you're one of the Founding Fathers of Sectional Enermentum already!

Like fire, sectional enermentum is both a boon and a threat to mankind. What else could explain something like the election of our current President....

I also see that many here are confusing sectional enermentum with erectional enermentum. If the latter occurs for longer than four hours please see a doctor immediately.

And this from a very reliable source, " The E in E pluribus unum " actually stands for,... you guessed it!

I'm all kind of confused here.

Karl Sellier has been dead for several years. Since 1997 in fact.

http://resources.metapress.com...kprdk18&size=largest

I still don't understand how increased, or increasing surface area might not slow down a bullet during penetration. That's the conclusion I've been coming to virtually every time I see ballistic testing. Is that wrong?

But of course this has nothing to do with sectional enermentum, which is much easier to understand.

quote:

Like fire, sectional enermentum is both a boon and a threat to mankind. What else could explain something like the election of our current President....

I also see that many here are confusing sectional enermentum with erectional enermentum. If the latter occurs for longer than four hours please see a doctor immediately.

I wonder what doctors think they're going to do about that? Or maybe I don't want to know!

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:
I'm all kind of confused here.

Karl Sellier has been dead for several years. Since 1997 in fact.

http://resources.metapress.com...kprdk18&size=largest

I still don't understand how increased, or increasing surface area might not slow down a bullet during penetration. That's the conclusion I've been coming to virtually every time I see ballistic testing. Is that wrong?

But of course this has nothing to do with sectional enermentum, which is much easier to understand.

quote:

Like fire, sectional enermentum is both a boon and a threat to mankind. What else could explain something like the election of our current President....

I also see that many here are confusing sectional enermentum with erectional enermentum. If the latter occurs for longer than four hours please see a doctor immediately.

I wonder what doctors think they're going to do about that? Or maybe I don't want to know!

See PM...

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:

quote:

Originally posted by WhatThe:
How do I join? Do I get a membership card? An iron on patch? I know all about "enementum" and it's effects on the not so bright. It's kind of like using a football bat at a hockey game where they are using hockey clubs and in Florida where they use golf sticks and soccer rackets. I even worked on one. They are not American standard or even metric but rather "ener-stan-metric" and can be difficult to find. I even had to have my machinist make me some tools using his left handed drill press and gasoline powered magnifying glass.

Ah, looks like you're one of the Founding Fathers of Sectional Enermentum already!

quote:

Like fire, sectional enermentum is both a boon and a threat to mankind. What else could explain something like the election of our current President....

I also see that many here are confusing sectional enermentum with erectional enermentum. If the latter occurs for longer than four hours please see a doctor immediately.

I wonder what doctors think they're going to do about that? Or maybe I don't want to know!

[/QUOTE]

Erectional enermentum is a myth that may have evolved from "Erectilium momentous" which of course is the founding and fundamental principle of penetrating the elusive Mcwhiskerous Biscuitile (Mc-whisker-ous `` Biscuit-tile). Understanding that this is also an area of variables, we must also use of: Hurgot Snorten's theory of "Hardwood coefficient splintering" in the event the Mcwhiskerous Biscuitile has teeth. This has been portrayed as the number one instance of meat whistle failure. This is where the guidelines stop and debate is born. "Failure to penetrate" is what we are talking about and is more than likely due to the Mcwhiskerous Biscuitile's failure to participate. But yet that can be debated and theories are welcome.

quote:

Erectional enermentum is a myth that may have evolved from "Erectilium momentous"

Oh, I think that was related to the fallacy of "sexual density", which was disproven long ago.

Sounds like you guys could use more hands-on field experience concerning internal ballistics. I know I need refreshers constantly.

quote:

internal ballistics.

did you mean "BULL"istics?