.

Hot Core, study this article
and learn from it that: "Your Kinetic Energy rating appears to be as relative as motion itself. If the bullet's Kinetic Energy rating can be viewed by different observers as both increasing and decreasing at the same time for the same fired bullet, then I think we have just proved that Kinetic Energy is imaginary and therefore not real for the bullet."

Then know that ".... force and acceleration ......does and always will represent the true explanation of cause in these bullet firing and impacting events. These forces and the attendant rates of acceleration are absolute, meaning that they will always test the same magnitude and direction for each and every non-accelerating observer. The rating systems of Kinetic Energy and momentum do not hold to this absolute standard as each will give a different result for each different observer.
Above all, know that these man-invented rating systems, however useful, are not the cause of any event."

Hope you will then start seeing the light at the end of your dark tunnel!

Hey Mark, I just noticed alf and jagter included some kind of posts directed to me. But, I'm not even bothering to read their comments because I realize neither of them have anything remotely valid to offer in the discussion except nonexperienced, irrelevant, loonacy.

I'd recommend ignoring their posts for anyone else, unless you just want to see how WRONG people can be about Killing, or if you want a few laughs at their expense.

quote:

I'd recommend ignoring their posts for anyone else, unless you just want to see how WRONG people can be about Killing, or if you want a few laughs at their expense.

Can you explain what is correct and how the wounding effect is actauly acomplished and to what part does foot pounds of energy play???

When I started hunting an "Old Timer" once told me - "If you don't want it to run off, you better get a little bone with the shot". It has turned out to be good advise.

Energy is the ability to do work. In the case of bullets this accounts for tissue damage and damage to the bullet (mushrooming or deformation). Two objects with equal energy have the same POTETNTIAL to do damage. Energy does not kill things. Tissue damage does. However the two are related and proportional in similar objects at similar speeds.

The actual damage caused is a function of the type of bullet, the target, and the rate of energy transfer. A bullet has to have energy to do damage. Other objects like knives and arrows do not rely on energy to hurt things. They create a wound channel by slicing or cutting through tissue. The amount of energy needed to create a wound with a large volume is lower than the energy required by a bullet. This is because they are sharp and need less energy to penetrate and cause damage. A 400 grain arrow with a 1" broadhead cuts a wide wound path throuh an animal.

Bullets are not razor sharp. They need to have some energy to penetrate an object. Once they pentrate and open up they start to damage tissue. The potential to destroy tissue is relative to the amount of energy in the bullet. The bullet must however be designed to function in the velocity range that the bullet is in.

The optimum bullet would be designed to penetrate through the skin with litte energy loss and then mushroom to a very large size destroying the vital organs and expending a great deal of energy, then continue on and exit the far side of the animal. If you have a perfectly designed bullet then the KE of the bullet is proportional to the amount of tissue damage. The bullet with the highest kinetic energy will cause more damage and a larger wound channel.

Consider a 300 Savage with a 180 gr bullet at 2000 fps and a 300 RUM at 3400 fps. You need a light fragile bullet for the Savage and a strong well constructed bullet for the RUM to efficiently kill something. If you use a tough bullet in the Savage you're going poke a small hole in the animal and cause very little damage. You have to compare apples to apples.

The cue ball example is not valid to a discussion about bullets. There is no energy loss due to heat (or very little). Most of the energy loss in the cue ball is from putting the other balls into motion. The first ball's energy is tranfered into KE used to accelerate the other balls from a velocity of zero to 3 or 4 fps and move them across the table. The egg gets crushed by the ball because it can't absorb the energy without breaking. The pool balls are an example of an elastic collisoin where no damage is done to the objects and the Kinetic energy of the colliion is conserved and measurable based on the relative speed of the objects after collision. The egg is an example of a non elastic collision where the energy in the ball is used to break the egg.

.

It would seem that the bang flop phenomena, which is the way this thread started, happens a bit to soon in general to be accounted for by blood loss. In the case of central nervous system hits, the cause is obvious. Not so obvious are the cases where it occurs with no visible direct central nervous system trauma.

I read with interest the posts of handgun and bow hunters who had personal experience with the bang flop or twang flop phenomena. There have been so many posts, I may have forgotton about some of them but in the case of bow shots, the prompt demise of the animal seemed to happen with central nervous system (CNS) hits or neck hits. It seems likely to me that the neck hits could very well have been spine, i.e., CNS hits.

Now I will grant, the ultimate demise of the animal ensues from failure of cellular respiration resulting either from the inability to breath and oxygenate blood or from blood loss. I believe the bang flop phenomena where a CNS hit isn't involved is directly related to kinetic energy. Maybe it doesn't kill the animal but at least puts it promptly on the ground until it dies of blood loss.

It's interesting to me that it seems well accepted that if one has a head on collision with both vehicles going 35 mph one has a better chance of surviving than with both vehicles going 65 mph and yet there are those who think that the kinetic energy of a bullet doesn't enter into it's lethality. That said, I will agree that if you put a hole, by whatever means and even fairly small, in a vital structure the animal will die. The bigger the hole and the faster the bleeding the faster it will die.

Folks,

It would seem to me being the simple minded fellow that I am that all the scientific discussion about what causes "Bang Flop" is really irrelevant except for arguement's sake which I'm sure could go on into the next millenium.

Cold Bore,

Thanks for the spanking. I sort of enjoy it. I would like to say that I have not been too influenced by Jagter's post as he is only repeating a reality that I have been aware of for quite some years. All these energy numbers in and of themselves have nothing to do with an animals death.

Regards,

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by Grumulkin:
It would seem that the bang flop phenomena, which is the way this thread started, happens a bit to soon in general to be accounted for by blood loss. In the case of central nervous system hits, the cause is obvious. Not so obvious are the cases where it occurs with no visible direct central nervous system trauma.

I took a large whitetail buck w/ a heavy arrow shot from a longbow into the center mass of the base of its neck. This was in hilly terrain where he was above me slowly following a doe. I was using an old 63lb-draw osage longbow shooting a turkey feather fletched cedar shaft w/ a 160gr broadhead. Up to that point I had only taken double lung shots with this combo on deer at close range. This deer was about 25yds away but the angle was too great making the shot of hitting the bottom of the onside lung and the top of the offside lung too small for my comfort. The deer stopped and stretched his neck out to browse and the size of his neck appeared larger than the vitals of my 3D practice target so I took the shot.

I could see the arrow impact and the deer dropped straight down. I never saw a single twitch. I recovered my arrow and it was w/out any visible mark of striking any bone. Upon butchering the deer and following the arrow wound, it did not appear to make direct contact w/ the spine.

A friend's father-in-law is a pro hunter for Mathews and they travel and hunt w/ Chuck Adams. As a result, this freind is always equipped w/ the latest whiz-bang super fast bow. When we stand side-by side and shoot at the same taret, I notice that my heavy cedar arrow hits the target much harder than his fast arrow. Mine sounds like hitting the target with a bat. This got me thinking about my years of martial arts and fighting full contact. I've been knocked out cold from a strike to the base of my neck. In addition, one of my most spectacular KOs came when I put my heel into the base of a competitors neck and he dropped like a rock. He was taken away by ambulance and I thought I had killed him but he ended up being okay.

This gives me the opinion that forces from my arrow must have indirectly reached the spine causing a KO on my deer. I would then assume that the deer died from his wound prior to recovery from the KO.

G

Mark H Young wrote:

quote:

I would like to say that I have not been too influenced by Jagter's post as he is only repeating a reality that I have been aware of for quite some years. All these energy numbers in and of themselves have nothing to do with an animals death.(My italics.)

Excellent Mark, that is exactly what it is all about!
Because of that being known and realised one can now confidently say: "An extremely interesting article putting an end to an old fallacy - KE as the cause of events." Read article once again.

BigNate understands it fully when he asks:

quote:

Mass x Vel= Energy( Force) right? And isn't KE simply the means of measuring this energy?(My bold italics.)

That is why Ethan Skyler confidently concludes his article with:
"Above all, know that these man-invented rating systems, however useful, are not the cause of any event."

The guy who wrote that article smokes too much crack cocaine. The whole bunch of garbage about relativety has no bearing on the issue. It just changes the direction of the force vectors. It in no way changes the magnitude of the Energy involved. If you shoot one bullet at another they both get deformed due to the impact energy. In reality it doesn't matter if one of them is at rest and the other is moving at 3000 fps or if they are fired from different directions at 1500 fps each and collide
head on.

As far as the momentum equations go they are not valid if either of the colliding bodies is deformed. The deformation creates an energy loss that can't be tracked using these equations.

.

Energy does not kill. Energy is defined as "the POTENTIAL to do work". Tissue damage and blood loss kills animals. All else being equal (a perfect transfer of energy, perfect shot placement, perfect bullet design) a bullet with more energy causes more damage to tissue. It's no different than getting hit by a car going 20 mph or one going 80 mph. The car that's moving faster has more energy and will cause more damage.

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
...I have not been too influenced by Jagter's post as he is only repeating a reality that I have been aware of for quite some years. All these energy numbers in and of themselves have nothing to do with an animals death....

Hey Mark, At least I tried to get it through your skull how it actually works.
---

And now there are 4 who don't have a clue.

/

elkhunter wrote:

quote:

If you shoot one bullet at another they both get deformed due to the impact energy. In reality it doesn't matter if one of them is at rest and the other is moving at 3000 fps or if they are fired from different directions at 1500 fps each and collide head on.

Isn't that exactly what the guy who wrote that article said in the article itself?
Ethan Skyler wrote:

quote:

Equal damage indicates to me that at the moment of collision, the speeding bullet is not in any way different from the target bullet. ...
After firing, an absolute closing velocity is established between the fired bullet and the target bullet. It matters not whether this velocity is thought to be possessed by the fired bullet or the target bullet or a portion shared by each.

Can elkhunter please explain to us to whom is his next statement now actually applicable?

quote:

The guy who wrote that article smokes too much crack cocaine.

Relativety doesn't play into the amount of energy in the equation. It doesn't matter if the bullet hits the target at 3200 fps or an animal runs into a stationary bullet at 3200 fps the result is the same. Perspective and direction are irrelevant.

ALF,

I agree with you that energy is not the only factor in the equation. The data you listed is for steel balls that do not transfer energy that well. With expanding bullets There is a better correlation between energy and wound volume. Effective tranfer of energy into tissue damage takes a well designed bullet. Without an effective bullet much of the energy is wasted. However, energy still plays a part in the amount of damage caused.

Temporary cavitation of the wound is much greater with higher velocity as well. It may not affect muscle to a large degree but it does affect many of the bodies organs. The liver and brain especially are damaged by the temporary cavitation, because thay dont flex well without taking damage like muscle can. I would assume that the lungs would would also be affected by cavitation to some degree.

E.

elkhunter, before you make too much of the General Theory of Relativity, designed by Albert Einstein, I think you should read the following article with great concentration - that will reveal certain definite differences between specific events you are apparently not aware of at present.

Grumulkin:

I read your prefatory comments and fully agree. It happens that I can almost duplicate your impala shot with a 375 H&H except that mine was at about 60 yards - a heart shot (he was facing me directly). To answer your request for other experiences:

20 yards (or so) -white tail with a 12 ga.slug. A chest shot that bowled him over. He was "down" but did try to rise on seeing me.

35 yards (or so) - white tail with 30-30 (170 gr) shot behind the left shoulder (As you accurately pointed out, "down" is only "down". I did walk up meaning to fire again but the buck died as I raised the rifle.I honestly don't remember definitely if it was a heart shot -or that he choked on lung blood.

20 yards( or so) - white tail with a 30-06, (180 gr) hit on the point of the left shoulder. He staggered and fell down. I ran up and put another shot (by shoving the muzzle behind his shoulder) as he went to get up.He really was "down" for good and only tried to rise upon seeing me so I count him as "bang/flop"

80 yards(or so) - black bear (dressing out at about 200 lbs) - 7mm Mauser (7x57), 154 gr. He dropped from a shot on the point of the shoulder and never moved thereafter and was dead as I came up to him. (I was told by the butcher that the bullet had sprayed into the lungs) It also exited but I never thought to look for it at the time so i have no idea how much integrity was preserved - but it gave me a lifelong respect for the 7x57.

Thanks for a very interesting inquiry that got me to thinking -and I'm sure a lot of hunters will be glad to think back in their memories!

Back to the topic at hand.

I have had two "bang flops" with my .308. The first was a small doe shot at about 20 yards. Broke the spine about 6" from the head and she went down like a sack of potatoes.

Second one was a much larger doe at 150 yards. Bullet was about 1" below the spine, in the frontal area (can't remember exactly where). The doe was dropped instantly.

Both were close to the spine.

This past year, I had two deer with massie fatal wounds that manage to get farther than I would like. The first was a doe, shot in the lungs and heart. The heart was gone, and both lungs punctured, but she ran 40 yards.

The second was a buck at about 200 yards. Same type of shot, took out the heart and lungs. He made it 5 feet (close to a bang flop) before plowing into the sand bar.

.

It is no surprise to me that if you hit and damage the CNS the animal will go bang/flop. I would be surprised if it would be otherwise except for breaking the spine behind the shoulders where the aninal will still bang/flop but will probably require a finishing shot. I have seen quite dead people with broken necks from falls or car accidents where bleeding would not have been the cause of death.

What is of interest is why a bang/flop sometimes occurs on a hit centrally through both lungs without any apparent CNS damage (spine/brain). For me that has been very rare on north american game with rifles such as 270, 7mm mag, 30-06, 375 etc. But it has happened a very few times.

A few years ago just outside West Nicholson Zimbabwe I was culling impala and used my 375 H&H with handloaded ammo comprised of 270 gr, old screw machine Nosler Partiion bullets. I used most of two boxes on impala. All were hit through the lungs broadside and all were bang/flop/ and apparently instantaneously dead. Why was this load combination so deadly? Thirty-five or 36 such consecutive kills seems beyond the realm of coincidence. Perhaps Alf can explain why this happened.

465H&H

465 H&H

How about a non scientific answer? The 270 gr. NP's from your 375 were a perfect tool for the job. The front part of the bullets came unglued directly after impact and basically destroyed the whole chest cavity equalling instant death for all practical purposes. That bullet/rifle combo probalby worked nearly as well for everything you were hunting.

Mark

What kills is not kinetic energy. However, without kinetic energy there is no movement taking place. A bullet in a stationary position on a table can't drop kinetic energy (it's not moving).

http://jersey.uoregon.edu/vlab/KineticEnergy/

Kinetic energy is physics. You can take a spear and gently push it between the ribs and pierce the heart. In this case, even though the spear moved slowly, kinetic energy took place (movement), but what did the killing was the wound. However, kinetic energy is directly proportional to the wound, because the spear had to be "moved" toward the heart.

If you toss the spear instead of gently moving it forward, kinetic energy takes place but at a faster rate (more speed).

If you can shoot the spear with a gun, kinetic energy again takes place. The spear arrives at the target as a high rate of speed, and probably keeps on flying long past the target.

As long as an object is moving, there is kinetic energy taking place or being dumped, since resistance is always opposing the movement of the object.

Even the bombs dropped on Al-Zaqawi dumped a whole bunch of kinetic energy.

/

If you use a 375 H&H on a deer sized animal with 300 gr. solid (non-expanding) bullets @ 2550 fps and shoot it thru the lungs broadside you will get complete penetration. If you do the same thing with the same bullet going 2800 fps I wouldn't expect a significantly greater amount of tissue damage. In the second case the kinetic energy and momentum factors would be much higher. Whether the same would hold true for expanding bullets is more in doubt.

I suspect a quick expanding bullet of relatively soft construction from a 7mm Mauser would destroy a similar amount of tissue as a more stoutly constructed bullet from a 7mm Ultra mag assuming both pass thru the deer. I'll probably get some argument here.

ALF!
with all due respect I hope you can provide some insight to my experience and question posted above.

465H&H

465,

I believethat you are correct in your assumptions. In the first case you're dealing with non-expanding bullets. Higher velocity will not yield a significantly larger wound with a solid bullet. The bullet does not deform and mushroom. In this case most of the kinetic enrgy in the bullet is wasted because the bullet will cut a narrow channel through tha animal and contiue flying out the other side.

In the second case it would depend a lot on the type of bullet, shot placement, and the velocties involved. In general with a heart lung shot that penetrates all the way through without hitting a bone etc.. the amount of tissue damage would be similar. With the faster bullet you would create more cavitation or temporary volume in the wound. This may or may not affect the animal.

It doesn't take much energy to shoot through the lungs of a deer. If there is no resistance to the bullet it will not transfer as much energy into the animal. Extra energy is overkill in this situation. If you hit the shoulder of the deer you'll see a big difference between the two bullets. The higher energy bullet of strong construction will be more likely to break the bones and penetrate further in this case.

In reference to the bang flop shots you had on the Impala, I think Mark is correct. You had a lot of energy in the bullet and it was transfered very quickly to the animal. If you destroyed the heart and lungs and caused a lot of damage in a short period of time the animal can drop on the spot. The rate at which energy is transfered determines the power of the bullet. It's similar to a car hitting a brick wall and coming to an immediate stop, or slowing down gradually after hitting a large snow bank. The amount ofenergy used to slow the car from 60 mph to 0 is the same in both cases, but they have dramtically different results.

What my question was concerened what was the actual cause of the instantaneous death where the CNS was not impacted. Alf said that instantaneous death normaly is caused by CNS disruption. I am wondering what causes it on a lung shot. Alf seems like the best person to give us an idea of what causes instant death in these cases.

465H&H

/

Alf!
Thanks for the explanation. My mamalian anatomy is a bit rusty. Can you supply a drawing that shows the location of Batsons Plexus and the artery of Adamcovics? By the way, I prefer to drink my Marula.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
What my question was concerened what was the actual cause of the instantaneous death where the CNS was not impacted. Alf said that instantaneous death normaly is caused by CNS disruption. I am wondering what causes it on a lung shot. Alf seems like the best person to give us an idea of what causes instant death in these cases.

465H&H

Most of the moose I have killed have dropped on the spot, or very close to it. In fact, most have dropped by the time I am reloading the chamber for a second shot. I have shot a couple of moose that dropped like hit by lighting, and again, right through the lungs/heart.

I have had a couple of moose that have walked after the shot: one walked 25 yards before it dropped, and the other took maybe three steps. However, these two moose had seen me and tried to walk away before I shot them, while the rest of the moose had not been aware of my presence.

What I have noticed with all the moose I have killed is that both the entrance and exit areas of flesh on the outside of the moose have been badly blood-jelled, but not so much tissue damage on the lungs and heart (except for the wound channel).

So, I believe that to stop an animal such as a large bear a shot that disrupts the CNS will work extremely fast, even if the animal is on a full charge. But if the animal is not running from you or toward you (not aware if your presence), there is a great chance to drop it on the spot with a well-placed shot through the heart or lungs. I would imagine that if the bullet hits the lungs or heart when the animal is ready to take the next breath, the extreme shock on the lungs and heart may in fact drop it on the spot. I wonder about that sometimes.

All I know is that I have been gut-punched at least one time when I was a kid, and it seemed that I was never going to breath again

Maybe the shock form the bullet not only disrupts the breathing process on top of creating a wound channel.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
...Alf seems like the best person to give us an idea of what causes instant death in these cases....

.

Alf!

Thanks for that discription it clears up my anatomical question. Another question, can damage to nerves located behind the shoulder area cause loss of consiousness or complete body paralysis?

465H&H

.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
...Alf seems like the best person to give us an idea of what causes instant death in these cases....

Another post, filled with relevant information......... NOT

quote:

As to bang flops ( sudden incapacitation) I think all are one in that the shot has to either directly impact the CNS or alternately be so close that the temporary cavitation effect do the dirty deed.

Not all of them. I've seen a pile of deer sized game dropped w/ hits that a) broke no large bone and b) hit several inches from the spine. The two most rescent were on bucks I shot w/ soft expansive bullets. One was on the move and I hit him too far rearward, directly through the middle of the body (diaphram). I thought for sure he was spined until examination proved different. The other, same hit as above (diaphram), dropped instantly, tried to get up, and fell over dead. I've seen many others as well.

I do agree that the shock wave most likely cuases those type of hits to drop game. The key is to make a very big shockwave. Higher velocity plus expansive bullets lead to more shock. A simple look at ballistic gelatin or large fruit (watermelons for example) after being shot w/ either expansive vs tough bullets illustrates this theory. That doesn't mean you can hunt big boar or other big game w/ varmint bullets, their bodies and structure are not proportionately the same as smaller animals w/ lighter structure and the same expansive bullets.

Although I don't advise it, if you've ever seen a deer shot w/ a large varmint bullet at a very fast speed, you'll know what I'm talking about. It's pretty disgusting in some instances and many times it will make almost all internal organs unindentifiable.

Shock is a form of energy, hence energy does have a part in non-cns "bang flops." As the velocity increases, so does the energy and more damage is done. If it is a FMJ or Hard Bullet, that shock energy goes right through the animal w/o disrupting tissue.

For those that think an expansive fast bullet doesn't impart a huge amount of shock, you've aparently not seen it in action. One of the best examples I can think of though very stupid IMO, is to watch someone shoot at a fish in the water. The fast expansive bullet doesn't even have to hit the fish to kill it .

What many people fail to realize when they discuss energy and bang-flops is that many don't think of shock waves. For the shock wave to be more devastating, a bullet must exert it's energy while in the animal meaning it must expand to a large diameter and use the force of resistance inside the animal to stop itself. The bullet must transfer all of it's energy to stop or use most of it's energy to just exit and slow to a very low velocity. Once that energy is transfered upon impact, the shock is amplified and dispersed throughout the surrounding tissues in a cone like form. If the bullet is non-expansive, the tissues of the animal will not provide enough resistance for this shockwave to occur therefore it penetrates fully and leaves little tissue damage behind. It's a realtively easy concept to grasp.

Ya'll have a good one

Reloader