Read this with an open mind and see what a wound balistics expert has to say......


http://www.chuckhawks.com/terminal_performance_muzzleloading.htm

/

I do most of my deer hunting with a slug gun or a muzzleloader. When I started hunting foster slugs and ML roundballs or some type of maxi were the most used bullets.

Today most use sabots with some type of controlled expansion bullet. There is a difference how deer react with these newer bullets. Foster slugs kill good but unless shoulders or spine was hit running 100 yds wasn't unusual. They drop quicker with the newer bullets. The article says down is not dead, true if it is someone with a gun trying to kill you. When I shoot a deer I want it down as soon as possible. The newer slugs do more damage and impart more of the bullets energy on the animal. Almost all still exit in my experiance.

Now in a military weapon where you have to use FMJ I'd agree a bigger bullet is more effective. But where you have a choice in bullet designs I think other factors more important then just bore diameter.

Interesting article, thanks for posting it. I have no problem believing that my personal experiences are stastically meaningless, but those experiences tend to agree with this article. I have personally shot over 40 elk, and witnessed the taking of many more over the past 30 some years. One of the best examples of KE not being the super killer has been with my own .300 Jarrett. With this cartridge I was shooting a 200 grain bullet of standard construction at 3048 chrono'ed fps. At ranges of less than 300 yards that bullet ALWAYS came apart and did not give full penetration. All that KE was dumped into the chest cavity and invariably the elk ran from around 75 to sometimes as much as 150 yards. Elk shot at 30 and 40 yards with that load would be terribly blood shot but still ran just as far. The '06 and .270's we used as kids seemed to kill just as well. For myself, I have come to prefer complete penetration over blazing speed, and a bigger hole is icing on the cake.

Good article...

A point to consider (I don't know if this is the answer to all wounding characteristics of projectiles, but interesting concept nevertheless)... if kinetic energy is irrelevant and penetration is the key component, what would happen if someone pushed a long needle through the chest of an animal? (complete penetration, not likeley fatal).

In my mind, the most relevant component to effective harvesting of game with projectiles is the actual surface area of the wound channel within the vitals. Bullets with high KE which explode on contact do not create a wound channel in very much of the vitals (most of the wound channel is in the soft tissues before reaching the vitals), just as non expanding bullets with complete penetration will create a wound channel directly proportional to the diameter of the bullet. The arrow tipped with broadhead gives a huge wound channel, but only if penetration is sufficient. The penetration doesn't kill the animal, the wound channel as a result of the penetration and large cutting surface area does.

I'm still a believer in a bullet which is a compromise between expansion and penetration for optimum performance. A bullet which exits wastes potential energy in creating a larger wound channel, just as a bullet which explodes on contact wastes energy on the soft tissues rather than the vitals.

Jon

Remember size of the permanent wound channel is relavent, secoundary wounding starts at 2000fps and up and these all contribute to the permanent wound channel

Although applying to muzzle loaders, it does point out in the article arguments for the Barnes X and the Nosler Partition without a doubt...

I myself see two things which I rate as a good hunting load...which I believe the article supports...

Heavier bullets with high Sectional density, and non magnum velocities will penetrate quite deep..

But I have also found that smaller projectiles, that don't have high sectional density, will also penetrate quite deeply when launched at lower velocity....

For my penetration tests, I still believe a good old piece of live wood on part of a tree is a good testing of penetration potential... I always choose tree types that have a high sap content, like pines or manzanita that we have here in Oregon....

NOT only do I look to see if a bullet will penetrate it, but also how much damage there is around the exit hole on the back side.... This indicates what a bullet will do internally within the animal's vitals for shock value once the outer skin and muscle are penetrated..

The other day testing some youth loads in 6.5 mm using a 100 grain ballistic tip... at a distance of 25 yds, I shot into the body of a manzanita tree which had a diameter of about 7 inches....

Haven't got to chronographing the velocities, but two bullets were fired about 1 foot difference in point of impact, but same diameter still on the tree trunk....

The load with 25 grains of SR 4759 out of a 6.5 x 55 failed to penetrate completely thru the tree trunk....

The load with 22.5 grains of SR 4759 and a 100 grain ballistic tip, not only penetrated but an area about the size of a dollar bill was turned into tooth picks and mush upon exit...

The same test with shooting from 100 yds away, both of the loads penetrated this time and did the same amount of damage...

What this shows me at least, is that at a lower velocity even a bullet with small sectional density has the abililty to penetrate and not have the media it is hitting overcome the bullets integrity before it disintegrates...

This is also proven by a bullet proof vest...( I have only read this, and have done so from numerous sources, so I believe it to be true)
a 44 mag or a 45 ACP will not penetrate a bullet proof vest....

However cops wearing them are afraid of something like a 22 Mag.. because even out of a short barreled pistol the 22 Mag will go right thru a bullet proof vest, and will also cause quite a bit of internal damage to the victim that has been shot...

a lot has to be said for the penetration ability of a projectile as slower speeds....

That is why 30/30s seem to kill better than ballistic say they will...

or turn of the century ballistics of such cartridges of a 30/40 Krag with a 220 grain RN at 2000 fps... or a 7 x 57 with a 173 grain RN and a MV of 2300 fps... or a 6.5 x 55 with an MV of 2100 fps with a 160 grain Round Nose...

People now are hung up on killing something at a zillion yards instead of just plain getting closer with a tamer cartridge that they can accurately shoot....

Marketing and testosterone are two key reasons for this in my book...

considering all of this newer long range technology available.... facts haven't changed any in the fact that 90% plus of all deer are still taken at 100 yds or less...

Elk are still taken in timber at shorter ranges instead of a 400 yds out across a field...some guys can argue at long distances on antelope... but then connect with an antelope, it doesn't take much to down it... a 6mm or a 22.250 works just fine....

I applaud anything that tries to get all of this knetic energy and foot pounds dogma out of people's minds and returns plain old common sense to hunting...

Guess that is why I have always considered bow hunters and muzzle loader hunters, far superior hunters to those of us that use centerfires...

I have far more respect for a guy sitting in a tree with his bow as a hunter, than I do some guy with his Whatever Magnum Sendaro Beanfield rifle with his 6 x 24 scope with the 50mm objective...( with $3,000 plus invested) shooting bullets that cost $3.50 every time he pulls the trigger....

for the guys with the beanfield rifles... I don't consider it such a big feat hitting a deer at 400 or 500 yds with a set up like that from a good rest...after spending time out with guys who hit pop can sized sage rats at 250 to 300 yds all summer, or 2 litre soda bottle sized prairie dogs at 400 yds all summer....
then hitting a deer at 500 yds is going to look like a dump truck out there in your scope site!

Sure no one wants to eat a prairie dog or sage rat, ( except coyotes, buzzards, falcons and eagles, etc).... but a varmint hunter is a much better rifleman any day over a guy with his spendy long range rig...

and the humorous thing is... these types usually knock Farmer Brown hunting with his 30/30 and say it won't kill anything beyond 35 yds.... well they always forget, that their whizbang magnum doesn't have any more energy out at 500 yds, than Farmer Browns 30/30 does at 50 to 75 yds....

I don't understand this concept, the spendier equipment one can afford all the sudden makes him a better hunter.... it is a wonder that Gucchi Scope covers and rifle cases aren't available.... but then Ford did identify the market where Ford Excursions, Explorers etc can come with an Eddie Bauer edition...



end of soap box rant...
sorry...but this stuff gets to me...
seafire

jwp475 wrote:

quote:

Kinetic energy does not wound.

Comment from Dr. Fackler:

quote:

The KE fallacy is so pervasive that it needs to be corrected as often as possible.

With great articles like this we will eventually all understand and accept events and results brought about by fired bullets simply because we do understand what real forces brought it all about.

Another article
where KE is pointed out as a fallacy.

I did not write the article the artcle was written by Randy Wakeman

/

Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed it quite a bit, and wish I could repeat it as clearly as it is written. Nate

Alf
Would you mind if I copied your post on velocity and posted it on another forum??

Hey jwp475, I sure do appreciate you copying this to the Board, it should be a good exercise comparing the total foolishness within it to reality. I’ll post my thoughts here, but am not interested in arguing these points with anyone. You all feel free to do all the arguing with whoever wrote this total ignorance that you want.

The study of Human wounds and "Harvesting" (Game as someone included as a Politically Correct statement) should signal even the most rookie nimrod that once the word Kill is avoided, there is reason to be suspicious of the entire concept.

NOTE: An interesting study could be made on how someone "cloaks" totally wrong perceptions within a document by imbedding them between a few Factual statements.

quote:

Dr. Fackler mentioned that of his over 250 articles in print concerning wound ballistics, most were published in medical journals,

Since the research was done based on Humans and not Game, I’d agree that posting the results in Medical Journals is where it is appropriate. Trying to relate this study to Game leads to many totally wrong conclusions as will be seen below.

quote:

A paper from the U.S. Department of Justice of July 14, 1989 written by Special Agent Urey W. Patrick, Firearms Training Unit, FBI ACADEMY, Quantico, Virginia, entitled Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness made no headlines in the muzzleloading community, but perhaps it should have.

No, since the study was again on Humans, unless the Muzzleloading Community is planning on hunting Humans, it has no relevance. And it has no relevance at all to Hunting Game.

quote:

The conclusions expressed in this US Government Document should startle more than a few-and evoke a rethinking of what our perceptions of muzzleloading hunting and harvesting are.

No, two different issues all together. (Note Political correctness. HA)

quote:

"The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time.

Another severely WRONG conclusion.

Here no consideration is given to Spine shots or Shoulder-to-Shoulder shots. And I can understand why, because it destroys the previous bunch of bologna.

quote:

Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds.

Yes, a True statement mixed in with the bologna. See above NOTE:

quote:

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth.

This really makes me wonder if the person writing this bunch of total foolishness has ever seen a Kill, let alone make one. How this can be read without a person breaking into fits of laughter is beyond reason.

quote:

The critical element is penetration.

Though I’m as strong a proponent of Exits for Hunting as there is, only a totally inexperienced fool would write such ignorance. Many thousand heads of Game are killed each year without Exits.

quote:

The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding.

Wrong again. Game can be killed even with Fringe shots, however wounding is a real possibility and the potential for recovery of the Game, even if the Game does die, is severely reduced.

quote:

Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed."

Human and Dangerous Game situations perhaps, but way too many things get killed each day that this has Zero bearing on. And since it is not True across the board, then it lacks correctness.

quote:

Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet.

TOTALLY WRONG! This gives no credit at all to the transfer of Energy INCREASING as the Velocity goes up.

quote:

Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet."

This again is a classic example of cloaking foolishness with these two correct statements. See above NOTE:

quote:

It is the human animal being referred to, not larger heavier game animals, of course.

Agree, and that says drawing any conclusion on Game is irrelevant. But then the fool goes on in an attempt to do so.

quote:

The observations made are particularly relevant because the discussion is inclusive of inline muzzleloading caliber projectiles, and their performance at common muzzleloading terminal velocities.

Wrong again. The vast majority of Muzzleloaders use significantly larger diameter Bullets than Handguns. A comparison of the two is absurd.

quote:

Strike velocities exceeding 2000 fps from shoulder-fired weapons are not the center of this treatise.

Obviously - since not including Strike(Impact) Velocities negates the ignorance.

quote:

Ad-copy and owner's manuals have long reinforced that kinetic energy values are of paramount importance in selecting a load for game.

Rightfully so. Impact Velocity and the resulting transfer of Energy into the Game – Kill things.

quote:

Reading empirical evidence that kinetic energy alone is a very poor indicator of wounding should prove troubling to many.

Only problem is that there is NO Empirical Evidence given above, just a total lack of Hunting experience.

quote:

The brags of "knock-down" have been dispelled; it is a matter of physics that a bullets impact cannot knock down an animal any more than it knocks down the shooter.

And once again - WRONG.

Here is a situation that surely many of the people who visit the Forum have witnessed besides me. A head of Game is beginning to move forward, and the Right front hoof is off the ground. The shooter places an Expanding Bullet with good Mass and decent Velocity into the Left Shoulder so it angles into the Right Shoulder. That Impact most certainly can produce "knock-down", or clean off their hooves results, depending on the size of the Game.

quote:

As cited in the article, the impact of a bullet strike is comparative to being it by a baseball.

Has nothing at all to do with Game. And surely no one has said getting "shot" is the same as getting hit by a baseball. It most certainly is not.

quote:

Consider the often lauded "dropped in his tracks." It sounds impressive, but does not tell us anything about wounding ballistics.

It depends on if the Game is Dead or not. But it tells me a whole lot compared to a head of Game just standing there bleeding.

quote:

We have been taught to think that "down is dead," when down means only down. We think cute buzzwords like "dead right there" are meaningful, when they are absolutely not particularly meaningful or predictable.

I can see where the writer would think this is true. Darn shame he wrote this before having many(any?) actual Kills, because it makes the writer out to be a fool.

quote:

We place great value on our own experiences, yet our experiences (or wishful recollections of them) are statistically meaningless.

Ah yes, the attempt to put "actual first-hand experience" down. Again, the sign of someone with - no kills to his credit. There are people on this Board with hundreds and thousands of Kills to their credit. And I know of one for sure with way more than that. To say their actual First-Hand Experience is meaningless is the purest form of total stupidity I’ve read in a very long time.

quote:

We have been taught to worship at the altar of velocity, and think that shooting into newspapers or clay is directly comparable to living tissue with circulation and a rib cage. We are only fooling ourselves, and we have had a lot of help from ad copy and anecdotal evidence to support our self-deception.

HAHAHA Here again the fool just doesn’t have enough experience to understand how the comparisons work. I do agree that shooting clay and paper is totally different(See above NOTE: ), if however the person doing the comparison notices unique similarities between the Expanded bullets from the clay and paper with what he recovered from Game, then he has gained a useful Test Bed. But of course, having the Test Medium actually be useful Totally Negates this absurd line of stupidity.

quote:

"Energy transfer" has been parroted and regurgitated as something of value, and some still believe that a bullet that stays inside an animal is more effective than one that exits. It has been disproved beyond doubt.

Nope, wrong again. I still want Exits, but way too many head of Game die without Exits for anyone to believe this ignorance. Surely only "alf" would buy in to such ignorance.

quote:

Living tissue is underestimated, and misunderstood. All animals and all wounds are unique unto themselves, and no bullet wound on game can be identical to the one prior, or the next one.

See above NOTE:

quote:

Dog and spear can harvest boar, yet where is our fabulous energy transfer that has been so loudly touted.

Comparing a Spear to a high Velocity bullet goes back to a complete lack of understanding concerning how the two Killing implements work. Yes indeed, Spears and Bullets Kill differently. Am I the only one who knows this?

quote:

Arrows can, and have cleanly harvested game-but how much energy IS there to transfer in the first place?

Doesn’t matter, because an Arrow does not Kill due to Energy Transfer, it Kills by severing anything in it’s path that is carrying Blood. As the Blood runs out of the Game, so does the Life.

And if the Arrow happens to hit the Spine, it will Knock It Off It’s Feet with a Dead Right There result.

quote:

We have long heard, and likely have given credence to the "800 fpe to ethically harvest game." Yet, that random number can be achieved with a 25 grain bullet at 4000 fps, or with a 350 grain bullet at 1100 fps.

Arguing with Absurdity. Even the rookie nimrods can see through this sophomoric line of foolishness.

quote:

Obviously, there is a difference in what tissue destruction can be obtained, and the size and type of heavy bone that can be obliterated as well with such divergently weighted projectiles.

See above NOTE:

quote:

That effectively dismisses the 800 fpe figure, alone, as the only meaningful value.

WRONG-O! Many heads of Game have been killed with less. What it does do is provide a Cornerstone for a Beginner to start looking at Cartridges "that have the potential" to make Clean, 1-shot Kills under non-optimum conditions. I personally like more available Energy at the Point-of-Impact, but of course that is simply talking from First-Hand Experience, of which the writer denigrates.

quote:

It is important for me to mention that forensic laboratory tests that have clinically disproven the conventional acceptance (and reliability) of "kinetic energy," "knockdown," frangible bullets, worship of velocity, and exposed the relative unimportance of temporary cavity are not my revelations at all. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Martin L. Fackler, M.D., and his colleagues, for their work in defining what is really important in wounding, and also what is actually a collection of urban legends and myths.

If that is what Dr. Fackler’s writings lead a person to believe, then the person has either read it wrong or Dr. Fackler doesn’t know Killing from spit.

quote:

The quickest way to harvest a deer or other game animal is a bullet through the brain. That is unlikely to become an increasingly common practice, as the small kill zone does not give much margin for error in the hunting fields,

See above NOTE:

quote:

and we all want pretty trophies. Posing with a deer with half of a skull or a blown off rack is something few of us seek, yet that is the fastest way to kill a deer however distasteful one may view this.

Filler-words at best and of no relevance to actual Killing or Wounding.

quote:

Animals of course move, feed, and change direction when don't want them to. The wind blows our relatively poor ballistic coefficient bullets around as range increases, and the likelihood of precise shot placement diminishes with increasing time of flight of our hunting bullets.

I’d suspect the writer plagiarized this from some useful piece of writing, because it actually makes some sense, unlike the rest of this ignorance.

quote:

The goal is to destroy as much vital tissue as possible, and cutting, crushing, stretching are the ways in which we do it. Cutting, as demonstrated by knife, spear, and arrow is the most efficient way to destroy tissue.

Now if you believe this, all of you should go sell ALL your firearms and go get a knife or spear to hunt with. Has ANYONE ever read such total ignorance on a Hunting Board???

quote:

Cutting and crushing is what muzzleloader projectiles can do, with stretching (temporary cavity) of relatively little value due to the elastomeric properties of living animal tissue.

WRONG Again!

I’m just going to stop ripping this total bunch of ignorance and stupidity apart at this point. No need to continue since it was obviously written by someone who is completely inexperienced in Killing Game.

/

I take anything from Fackler w/ a grain of salt. His models and predictions greatly effected me in my profession and have since been proven wrong as the actual field results were different than the Lab model predictions. If he told me the sky appeared blue and the grass appeared green, I wouldn't trust it.

Below is "cut & paste" from a previous discussion about the great Fackler:


Alf,

With all due respect, I disagree.

Fackler's model that has been adopted by most everyone is an approximation for living muscle of a leg from a freshly killed swine. It is a rough approximation and even then is only accurate w/ in 8% in temp cavities and 3% in penetration of the swine. Dr. Fackler himself has noted that it can give the impression of being a more exact technique than it is.

The Army, Navy, USSOCOM, WARCOM, FBI and Homeland Security recieved funding in 2003 for a Joint Servicewound Ballistics IPT to improve lethality in combat bullets. The first thing they worked on was to address the best way to test and evaluate rifle projectiles. They are now developing a new wound ballistics method because they have found that Fackler's 10%@4C model does not accurately assess living tissue destruction and does not accurately predict live tissue performance.

These models and predictions greatly effected me in my profession and have since been proven wrong as the actual field results were different than the Lab model predictions. This is best described in an article published by Ayoob:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob93.html

As far as the space shuttle goes, you lost me there. I don't see how that has anything to do w/ Newtonian and viscous forces on a bullet traveling through live tissue.

As far as anti-personnel weapons go. By military definition, they are designed to primarily injure or kill people. They need not muster great force, but spread smaller and slower projectiles over a large area. I don't know what this debate is over.

As far as peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject is concerned, It would not be difficult to find an expert in the field who would review the same material and have a different conclusion than what you have expressed.

I'm of the opinion that lab models are not worth crap unless the results are validated by actual field results. This is an interesting topic, but I'll now take fritz454's advice and agree to disagree.

this is just my opinion,
Gary

/

quote:

By ALF
I am in the proccess of doing a very large literature review on the subject and have gained a lot of information current and obsolete on the subject from a wide spectrum of sources. This includes even the erroneous past theories on how projectiles kill and wound.

Alf,I would be very interested in reading your material.I would certainly pay money for the opertunity.

/

CoBrad
What happen to your Jarrett..Did you sell it or did you find the right bullet/powder Combo..You weren't shooting B.Tips with it were Ya.
AK

Hotcore, why so worked up? Your post was so long I didn't read it to the end, and I love nothing more than to read about guns & bullets!

Take it easy, man!

friar

quote:

Originally posted by friarmeier:
Hotcore, why so worked up?

Hey Friar, I detest people making posts about Hunting, as if they are exhalted experts, when it is absolutely clear they have NO "first-hand experience". The fools are trying to make analogies between Human Wounds, with Game being killed. If they had any "first-hand experience" with either seeing people actually being wounded or killed and Game being wounded or killed, they would never have started whamming in such total stupidity.

Here is a Thread started by Brass Thief that makes it quite clear he has "some" Hunting experience, but not enough experience to understand some of the things he is saying are simply wrong. No need to pound on him, because he is not trying to come across as some kind of all-knowing Hunting Guru. The other folks contributing to his thread are siting examples that he can learn from - if he pays attention to them.

quote:

Your post was so long I didn't read it to the end...

If you read the initial post to this farce of a thread, and then read only part of mine, the only thing you missed was my destroying more of the ignorance with facts and reality. Any 8 year old rookie nimrod Hunter who has only "read" one "How to tie a Knot" article in Outdoor Life would have a better grasp on HUNTING and Killing Game than the fool who wrote the initial thread.
---

Anyone, like alf, believing the original post's foolishness should be out trading in all their firearms for Spears and Knives, since "Cutting, as demonstrated by knife, spear, and arrow is the most efficient way to destroy tissue."

Feel free to quote me on this response:

/

Hot Core wrote:

quote:

quote:

quote:
Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth.

This really makes me wonder if the person writing this bunch of total foolishness has ever seen a Kill, let alone make one. How this can be read without a person breaking into fits of laughter is beyond reason.

Hot Core, please explain to us just this one question: How does 'kinetic energy' wounds?

/

Alf would you post a reply here;

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?C...963&page=0&fpart=all

Your knowledge in this area is great and your imput would be appreciated,
Thanks

To those who think that penetration is everything and ftlbs is a non issue I say this, try doing all of your hunting with a 22/250 loaded with a fmj bullet and then give us your findings.

This doesnt have to be the rocket science wonder that articles like that make it out to be, and Ive observed that those who print such mental masturbation usually have an agenda.

A little research into the development of sporting arms/chamberings for big game hunting can go a long way here.

Another thing you can research that debunks this bunk is why the US military likes the 223.

One thing I can promise is that there have been more bang flop kills from the 375 h&h than from a bow.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
To those who think that penetration is everything and ftlbs is a non issue I say this, try doing all of your hunting with a 22/250 loaded with a fmj bullet and then give us your findings.

This doesnt have to be the rocket science wonder that articles like that make it out to be, and Ive observed that those who print such mental masturbation usually have an agenda.

A little research into the development of sporting arms/chamberings for big game hunting can go a long way here.

Another thing you can research that debunks this bunk is why the US military likes the 223.

One thing I can promise is that there have been more bang flop kills from the 375 h&h than from a bow.

Take a 300 RUM with a 180 grain at 3300 FPS the foot ponds of energy is 4354 foot pounds,now compare a 375 H&H with a 300 grain at 2530 FPS agian energy is 4265 foot pounds.The 300 RUM has 89 foot pounds more energy.Would the 300 RUM be equall to the 375 on large game?? I think not.. I would certanly choose the 375 not becase of energy,but becase it will leave a larger wound chanel. This example shows why useing foot pounds as away of rating effectveness of dfferent cartridges is flawed

/

Alf wrote:

quote:

The Kinetic energy contribution to the wounding mechansim is quite a phenomenon on it's own?

Where does it come from ? Well certainly inferred by the popular gun press over the years, those famous Weatherby ads showing an exploding milk jug of water when hit with one or Roy's wonders and who can forget the memorable sequence in "The day of the jackal" when Fox who plays the role of the assasin shoots the watermelon into a different world with some "mercury tipped" bullet

Each and every cartridge add or article quotes a kinetic energy value ? Why do they do this? is it important in any way?

Then this from:

quote:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOUND BALLISTICS LITERATURE, AND WHY

by M.L. Fackler, M.D.

Letterman Army Institute of Research
Division of Military Trauma Research
Presidio of San Francisco, California 94219

Institute Report No. 239
July 1987

quote:

4. Presumption of "Kinetic Energy Deposit" to Be a Mechanism of Wounding:
Serious misunderstanding has been generated by looking upon "kinetic energy transfer" from projectile to tissue as a mechanism of injury. In spite of data to the contrary (1, 63), many assume that the amount of "kinetic energy deposit" in the body by a projectile is a measure of damage (2-5, 36, 37, 40). Such opinions ignore the direct interaction of projectile and tissue that is the crux of wound ballistics. Wounds that result in a given amount of "kinetic energy deposit" may differ widely. The nondeforming rifle bullet of the AK-74 (Fig 6) causes a large temporary cavity which can cause marked disruption in some tissue (liver), but has far less effect in others (muscle, lung, bowel wall) (9). A similar temporary cavity such as that produced by the M-16 (Fig 2), stretching tissue that has been riddled by bullet fragments, causes a much larger permanent cavity by detaching tissue segments between the fragment paths. Thus projectile fragmentation can turn the energy used in temporary cavitation into a truly destructive force because it is focused on areas weakened by fragment paths rather than being absorbed evenly by the tissue mass. The synergy between projectile fragmentation and cavitation can greatly increase the damage done by a given amount of kinetic energy.

A large slow projectile (Fig 7) will crush (permanent cavity) a large amount of tissue, whereas a small fast missile with the same kinetic energy (Fig 4) will stretch more tissue (temporary cavity) but crush little. If the tissue crushed by a projectile includes the wall of the aorta, far more damaging consequences are likely to result than if this same projectile "deposits" the same amount of energy beside this vessel.

Many body tissues (muscle, skin, bowel wall, lung) are soft and flexible--the physical characteristics of a good shock absorber. Drop a raw egg onto a cement floor from a height of 2 m; then drop a rubber ball of the same mass from the same height. The kinetic energy exchange in both dropped objects was the same at the moment of impact. Compare the difference in effect; the egg breaks while the ball rebounds undamaged. Most living animal soft tissue has a consistency much closer to that of the rubber ball than to that of the brittle egg shell. This simple experiment demonstrates the fallacy in the common assumption that all kinetic energy "deposited" in the body does damage.

The assumption that "kinetic energy deposit" is directly proportional to damage done to tissues also fails to recognize the components of the projectile-tissue collision that use energy but do not cause tissue disruption. They are 1) sonic pressure wave, 2) heating of the tissue, 3) heating of the projectile, 4) deformation of the projectile, and 5) motion imparted to the tissue (gelatin bloc displacement for example).

The popular format for determination of "kinetic energy deposit" uses a chronograph to determine striking velocity and another to determine exit velocity. A 15-cm thick block of tissue simulant (gelatin or soap) is the target most often used. This method has one big factor in its favor; it is simple and easy to do. As for its validity, the interested reader is referred to wound profiles shown in Figs 1-7. Comparing only the first 15 cm of the missile path with the entire missile path as shown on the profiles shows the severe limitation of the 15-cm block format. The assumption by weapons developers that only the first 15 cm of the penetrating projectile's path through tissue is of clinical significance (64) may simplify their job, but fails to provide sufficient information for valid prediction of the projectile's wounding potential. The length of bullet trajectories through the human torso can be up to four times as long as those in these small blocs. Even if this method were scientifically valid, its use has been further flawed by nearly all investigators who have included the M-16 rifle bullet in those projectiles tested. This method assumes that the projectile's mass remains constant through both chronographs. The M-16 routinely loses one third of its mass in the form of fragments which may remain in the target (see Fig 2). The part of the bullet that passes through the second chronograph screens weighs only about two-thirds as much as the intact bullet that passed through the first set of screens. No provision is made for catching and weighing the projectile to correct for bullet fragmentation when it occurs. The failure to correct for loss of bullet mass can cause large errors in "energy deposit" data (8).

Surgeons sometimes excise tissue from experimental missile wounds that is, in their judgment, nonviable and compare the weight of tissue excised with the "kinetic energy deposited" (65). A surgeon's judgment and his technique of tissue excision is very subjective, as shown by Berlin et al (66), who found in a comparison that "One surgeon excised less tissue at low energy transfers and rather more at high energy transfers than the other surgeon, although both surgeons used the same criteria when judging the tissues." None of these experiments included control animals to verify that tissue the surgeon had declared "nonviable" actually became necrotic if left in place. Interestingly, all studies in which animals were kept alive for objective observations of wound healing report less lasting tissue damage than estimated from observation of the wound in the first few hours after it was inflicted (43-47, 67, 68). In a study of over 4,000 wounded in WW II it was remarked, "It is surprising to see how much apparently nonvital tissue recovered" (69).

Anyone yet unconvinced of the fallacy in using kinetic energy alone to measure wounding capacity might wish to consider the example of a modern broadhead hunting arrow. It is used to kill all species of big game, yet its striking energy is only about 50 ft-lb (68 Joules)-- less than that of the .22 Short bullet. Energy is used efficiently by the sharp blade of the broadhead arrow. Cutting tissue is far more efficient than crushing it, and crushing it is far more efficient than tearing it apart by stretch (as in temporary cavitation).

Seems to me the sooner we forget that the imaginary 'kinetic energy' is something causing events and rather recognise it as a 'man-invented rating system' only, the better we all will understand what forces are really at work on and in targets after being impacted by a fired bullet!

/

The fact that this article was written by Wakeman raises a flag right off and I would not waste my time reading such drivel . The man is highly adept at turning out reams of such gibberish......some facts mixed with a large helping of horse manure. The fellow is a legend in his own mind and really should be writing for one of the raggier gun rags.

Hot Core is right on target with his comments on this steaming pile.....

Hey Jagter,

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
...it should be a good exercise comparing the total foolishness within it to reality. I’ll post my thoughts here, but am not interested in arguing these points with anyone. You all feel free to do all the arguing with whoever wrote this total ignorance that you want.
...

quote:

Originally posted by Jagter:
...the sooner we forget that the imaginary 'kinetic energy' ...

It does appear that Jagter fits right in with the non-experienced writer and alf.

/

Your knowledge in this area is quite extensive.
Very Impresive.

How many of you folks that "agree" with the article are ready to get rid of your firearms and go to Spears and Knives?

/

You might be interested in the "South Carolina DNR Game Study," which tells it like it is in the real world of killing deer-sized game.

In the mid-1990s, Charles Ruth of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources conducted a study of whitetail deer killed on a 4500 acre intensively managed hunting area owned by the Cedar Knoll Club on the South Carolina coastal plain. The terrain varied, but included swampland and very thick brush. All deer were killed with centerfire rifles using telescopic sights by hunters sitting in elevated stands. The sample size is such that definite trends are apparent.

A total of 493 deer were killed in 602 shots, for a one-shot success rate of 81.9 %. Of these 305 were antlered, requiring 375 shots (81.3 %) to kill, and 188 were antlerless, requiring 227 shots (82.8 %), indicating that there was no significant difference between the kill rates for these two populations.

Roughly half of the deer shot (253 of 493, or 51.3 %) traveled less than 3 yards after being hit or simply dropped in their tracks. Of the instant incapacitation kills, 87.7 % (222/253) were definitely attributable to spinal or shoulder shots. Hit location is not known for the remaining 31 kills. Among the known hit locations, the mean distance traveled for clear spinal hits (52/222, or 23.4 %) was less than 1 yard. For shots that struck the shoulder (170/222, or 76.6 %), the mean distance traveled was 3 yards. Since the scapula lies directly over the neck / back junction it would be all but impossible to hit the shoulder without causing a paralyzing trauma to the spine (despite not directly damaging it) and the probability of causing serious trauma directly to the spine would be very high.

Roughly half the deer shot (240 of 493, or 48.7 %) ran a significant distance after being hit. Nearly all of these deer (221/240 or 92.1 %) were found dead; however 19 were discovered to be still alive, suffering from inadequate wounds (shot in the abdomen, legs, neck, etc.) and dispatched (a trained tracking dog was required to locate all of these deer). The distance traveled for those found dead was recorded, but no record was attempted for those which remained living since they pursued evasive paths in their escape. The mean distance traveled by deer that ran when hit (neglecting the 19) was 59 yards. No shot placement is known for 16 of the 240 kills that ran when hit. Those hit in the heart (14/224, or 6.3 %) traveled an average of 39 yards, those hit in the lungs (152/224, or 67.9 %) ran an average of 50 yards, and those struck in the abdomen (presumably hitting an artery or the liver, as opposed to only stomach and intestines) (58/224, or 25.9 %) ran an average of 69 yards.

Although no cross-correlation is available between trailing sign and hit location, most of the deer (155/240, or 64.6 %) left a good blood trail and traveled a mean distance of 46 yards, permitting easy recovery. A further quarter of those that ran (61/240, or 25.4 %) left relatively poor sign, little or no blood at the point where the deer was hit by the bullet, and only a weak blood trail that in many instances had to be found by the dog. These deer traveled an average of 83 yards. Five of those that ran (2.1 %) gave no indication that they had been hit by the bullet, left no sign whatsoever, and traveled an average distance of 152 yards; yet each was discovered dead.

Some information is known regarding the weapon used in 444 of the 493 kills. The weapons used are grouped by caliber against the mean distance traveled for all kills (including instantaneous kills). In general, trends by caliber are weak, as might be expected. However, there are differences that must be considered significant, statistically speaking (if in no other sense). The smallest bore, .243 (6 mm) caliber, accounted for 10.8 % (48/444) of the documented kills, with an average distance traveled of 40 yards. This compares with 31 yards for .277 caliber (84/444, or 18.9 %), 26 yards for .284 (7 mm) caliber (160/444, or 36.0 %), and 33 yards for .308 caliber (116/444, or 26.1 %). Clearly, there is a slight increase in the mean travel distance for the .243 bore. Surprisingly, there is also a significant (statistically) difference between the .284 caliber and the .277 and .308 calibers, which are essentially the same. I am at a loss to explain this, particularly given the sample size. Even more striking is the case of the kills involving the .257 caliber, which make up only 8.1 % (36/444) and which have a mean travel distance of a mere 14 yards! Now to a certain extent this can be attributed to the small sample size. But it also clearly reflects some bias of behavior by the shooters or the weapons used in this caliber. Unfortunately, no further information is available on specific cartridges used or cross-correlations between calibers and hit locations.

The bullets used were loosely grouped into "soft" (e.g., Ballistic-Tip, Bronze Point, or light for caliber bullets) and "hard" (Partition, Grand Slam, X-Bullet, or heavy for caliber bullets) categories. There is a bit of a problem here because testing has demonstrated that the Nosler Partition is certainly not a hard bullet and produces very expansive wounds. Nevertheless, some trends are evident. Soft bullets, as defined, were used in 81.1 % of kills (360/444) and resulted in instantaneous kills 58 % of the time, with a mean travel distance (including instantaneous kills) of 27 yards. Hard bullets were used in 18.9 % of kills (84/444) and dropped the deer in its tracks only 40 % of the time, for a mean travel distance for all kills of 43 yards. Extracting the instantaneous kills from the total, the mean distances traveled by deer which ran when shot are 61 yards in the case of soft bullets and 70 yards for hard bullets. In other words, the soft bullets produced expansive wounds with a 50 % greater probability of dropping the game instantly, but if it ran the bigger wounds reduced the distance only by 13 %. Southern whitetails are not the appropriate game for the use of controlled expansion bullets. I have gotten complete penetration with Ballistic Tips on shots through the shoulder and spine at close range. Nothing more robust is called for.

Conclusions:

1. Sex does not affect the toughness of deer
2. Bullet shot placement has a far more profound influence on terminal effect than does bullet caliber or style
3. Trauma to the spine anchors deer instantly; all other wounds allow some reaction
4. Deer shot well in the throracic cavity will drop within 50 yards or less, on average
5. Fully 1-in-4 deer will give little or no sign of being shot and will travel roughly twice as far as well hit deer
6. "Soft", expansive bullets are more likely to drop a deer instantly given a hit proximal to the spine, but only slightly reduce distances for deer that run

quote:

The fact that this article was written by Wakeman raises a flag right off and I would not waste my time reading such drivel . The man is highly adept at turning out reams of such gibberish......some facts mixed with a large helping of horse manure. The fellow is a legend in his own mind and really should be writing for one of the raggier gun rags.

Hot Core is right on target with his comments on this steaming pile.....

Very True.


Reloader

quote:

Originally posted by Ackley Improved User:
You might be interested in the "South Carolina DNR Game Study," which tells it like it is in the real world of killing deer-sized game.

(Lots and L-o-t-s and LOTS of excellent actual first-hand Kill data.

Hey AIU, I've seen that "real world Kill data" before. It is as different as night and day from the farce masquerading as a "worthwhile" article for a Hunter.

Interesting that no one has come forth to get rid of their "Firearms for Spears" as the PETA inspired loonacy would like all of us to do. Well..., probably alf, since he is unable to to even comprehend what the trash writing clearly says.

Really good to see Gary, Wstrnhuntr, sdgunslinger, AIU and Reloader saw through it all. And I feel sure there are many others laughing away at the writer and alf as the nonresponding readers try to make sense of it.

I am glad to see that others have seen beyond Randy Wakeman's "expertise". He spreads more BS than the best equipment that John Deere ever made.