quote:

That light # 3 must kick

That is why I don't load them faster.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I always wanted a 416 Taylor, but couldn't justify it since I have the 458.

Justify a new rifle really went away with my first 06.

Wife wanted to know why I needed a elephant rifle I said to keep them out of the garden.

She said we don't have any elephants in the garden I said see it is working.

I have one nice caliber had pair built one for me one for my buddy.

Ruger MKII stainless 25 inch Douglass air gage factory composite stock glass bedded.

Both shoot sub MOA.

10 pounds scoped, sling loaded.

If I didn't have so much Taylor brass I have it reamed for 416 Ruger.

With the advent of the 416 Ruger no need for the Taylor any more.

Sometimes, it's best to leave well enough alone.

quote:

Originally posted by 4sixteen:
Hunt for food, a passion. Moose and Elk...mmmm good. And organic. Used my .375 H&H Magnum on this here 52" Bull Moose

Really, that looks like a BIG 52"

I like the .375 H&H. I've owned two. The first one was custom on the Winchester 70, which was originally a 375. I had the factory barrel cut to 21", but still didn't like it. So, I had it re-barreled with a more slender barrel and stocked with McMillan. The gunsmith who did the work, AAron at Gator Guns in Kenai, was/is very skilled. I really liked the rifle, and it was relatively easy to carry. But later, I messed up and thought putting custom bottom metal on it, to replace the factory assembly, was a bright idea. I took it to another gunsmith who CLAIMED to be skilled. He re-bedded the whole barreled action, and screwed it up. What could I say after the fact? I ended up selling the stock and the barreled action separately.

Then I got a deal on a CZ 550 with the laminate stock. That thing was a beast compared to the Winchester/McMillan. I liked it, but it was heavier than I wanted to carry around, hiking, so I sold it.

After that I was done with the long cartridges, and decided that if it didn't fit a standard length action with a standard bolt face and magazine, I didn't need it.

I got a 9.3x62 and liked it better than the 375. I had two, and have recently sold them.

But I still have what is IMO THE elk and moose getter. It's a 9.3 mm on a necked up 338 case. I'm very comfortable handloading for it because the case capacity is almost identical to the 9.3x64. Also, there are plenty of listed loads for the 358 Norma. So, between the two for reference, I can "interpolate".

Besides H4895 is a very forgiving powder, and the handloader can use the so-called 60% rule with this powder - reduce as much as 60% of max listed load, safely. That gives a lot of maneuvering room for a wildcat. I found H4895 loads listed for the 358 Norma.

I've shot it very little. I took it out about a week ago and gained a new appreciation for it. I had it listed on gunbroker, got a lot of lookers/watchers but no bids. I set the price high because I know what it is and it's worth every penny. I decided to not sell it. What a relief. I doubt that I'll hunt elk or moose again, but I really like this rifle. I have maybe 500 of the Speer 270 gr bullets, so my plan is to load some reduced loads with that bullet, using H4895, at maybe 2300-2500 fps and just use it like it was a "normal" rifle. And enjoy it.

I'll try to post a picture of it.

Sorry about the poor quality pictures.

It's on a Ruger 77 MKII stainless action. PacNor stainless barrel. It has a custom trigger, I think it's a Timney. I had the whole barreled action Teflon coated by Birdsong, in black and gray, just to be different. the stock is HS precision with the aluminum insert, and it's glass bedded and painted. It feeds perfectly.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

quote:

Nose shape has more to do with penetration of solids than sectional densitygrain round nose solid factory load in the 416 Rigby at 2380 FPS was Out penetrated in wet print by a rep grain flat point Hard cast at west fps. SD was irrelevant.

This is exactly what I was getting at about erroneous assumptions, observations and misinterpretation of definitions.

The FN 416 at 2800 fps penetrates deeper than the RN 416 at same velocity though according to the originator of this observation mass and SD are apparently the same ! Erroneously then interpreted then that the SD is irrelevant and nose shape is ???

Back to the definition of SD:

SD of a projectile in motion = the ratio of its mass to its representative surface in the direction of motion also called the orthographic surface area which equals that surface area wetted by the target whilst in motion.

What is irrelevant during penetration is the SD printed on the box in which the bullet was sold !

Simply because all oblong bullet are inherently unstable , Yes unstable even FN bullets ( that is why we spin them ) Round balls are not unstable

Bullets may deform, erode, tumble and may fragment during the penetration process altering their SD as they penetrate !

This is why the RN 416 is out-penetrated by the FN of same mass and stated on the box SD !

The fact is that per unit distance penetrated the RN evokes more drag than the FN and specifically because of its dynamic instantaneous SD

What about nose shape ? It might come as a surprise to some here that the rounded nose shape is the best shape for penetration and not the flat ( with the provision that the projectile remain stable) Experiments done on long rod erosion and penetration shows that rods that penetrate erode to a rounded shape and that this shape is the "best shape

The issue in RN and pointed bullets vs FN bullets is that RN and Pointed bullets are inherently unstable based on their geometry of shape and thus distribution of mass around the centre of gravity .

This instability causes the RN bullet to have a poor SD during penetration thus it experiences more drag and therefore sheds more energy to the target per unit of depth penetrated ultimately showing less penetration than the FN.

As to the relevance of SD ! SD is central to all 3 branches of our ballistics system Internal, intermediate and terminal !

No arguement here. A proper round nose solid profile has been shown to out penetrate flat point solids. SD certainly has its use but not when spouted to directly or indirectly meant to indicate an amount of penetration.
Kinetic Energy is another missue$vterm when spouted as a predictor of lethality.

quote:

This instability causes the RN bullet to have a poor SD during penetration thus it experiences more drag and therefore sheds more energy to the target per unit of depth penetrated ultimately showing less penetration than the FN.

Focusing just on penetration, and nit picking about FN vs RN and the relevancy to SD is a fallacy.

The mathematical SD of the FN and RN is exactly the same, all else being the same. They apparently perform differently, or the mfg wouldn't be making so many FN bullets. A lot of variables come after the SD computation, re performance and lethality. But one thing that is not variable is the formula to compute the SD, on a given bullet. The math will produce the same results every time.

If there is such a thing as misrepresenting SD, you did it.

Kinetic energy IS a predictor of lethality, when combined with the other relevant factors.

You've got to have a starting place, some measure, and the math is where that starting place is. Ignore it, and you're just winging it, speculating, faking it, blowharding.

quote:

This instability causes the RN bullet to have a poor SD during penetration thus it experiences more drag and therefore sheds more energy to the target per unit of depth penetrated ultimately showing less penetration than the FN.

Talking about SD and drag and penetration - this is why trying to make a distinction out of the difference in a SOLID RN vs FN is nit picking and practically irrelevant in a discussion about big bear defense bullets.

So fucjing what if there is actually a difference?

Take a Barnes TSX, the darn thing will have the same weight after it mushrooms as it had to start with, but the drag is oh so much different, and thus the penetration is definitely affected. So, that's what it's supposed to do. Where is the fujking problem? I suggest it's in your head. It's the drag and the penetration that is lethal. If it's all about reducing drag to get more penetration, then that's where the fallacy is. Drag is desirable in bullets for brown bear, to produce the shock. That's what shedding energy is all about. But it's a question of just the right drag and at the right time. That's why the math on the kinetic energy is so important, and it predicts the lethality. All that kinetic energy will be shed, one way or another. It can be shed inside the bear, or in the willows. Your choice.

Of course the FN solid reduces all the worry about that and gives you something to focus on that you can nit pic.

Just imagine all that complicated drag and instability of a 350 gr Barnes TSX entering a brown bear at 2450 fps, retaining its weight, but morphing into a huge cutting petal mushroom.

No FPE is not a predictor of lethality. Kinetic energy is a calculating of mass in motion and nothing more. It’s not measurable only can be calculated. If you care to do the math you’ll find that a projectile can have more kinstic energy than another but will calculate to less newtons force. The wound channel is created by 1 the frontal area of the bullet fir the amount of direct crushed tissue. 2 the amount of direct applied force. 3 the amount of hydraulic pressure, which is a function of velocity. Kinetic energy (FPE) does not enter into this.

You do realize, don’t you that a bullet impact is an inelastic collision, not an elastic collision.

From what I've seen in the field, unless the brain or forward spinal chord is shot, lethality - how quickly the thing expires - should be a function of vital tissue volume destroyed by the shot.

Wound volume correlates with FPE and penetration correlates with SD (bearing in mind that bullet variables and hydrostatic shock are at play).

quote:

Kinetic energy is a calculating of mass in motion and nothing more.

So, the greater the kinetic energy calculated the greater one can predict lethality, within certain parameters.

A .458 400 gr A-frame at 2500 fps can be reasonably said to be more lethal (quickly) than the same bullet traveling at 1500 fps. And the reason for that reasonable prediction is for the most part the kinetic energy, which is transferred to the target.

.458 400gr TSX at 2500 fps vs .375 300gr TSX at 2900 fps. Same energy. The .458 has 50% more cross-sectional area and 15% more momentum. The .375 has a 12% higher SD (0.305 vs .272) and 16% more speed. Same lethality?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Kinetic energy is a calculating of mass in motion and nothing more.

So, the greater the kinetic energy calculated the greater one can predict lethality, within certain parameters.

A .458 400 gr A-frame at 2500 fps can be reasonably said to be more lethal (quickly) than the same bullet traveling at 1500 fps. And the reason for that reasonable prediction is for the most part the kinetic energy, which is transferred to the target.

Momentum is transferred to the target, not kinetic energy. The resulting target momentum gives it KE.

Controlling for bullet shape, construction, and shot placement, penetration is a (the?) key component of lethality and momentum (not KE) is THE
key to penetration

Here's a 'best case' example where the bullet transfers 100% of it's momentum to the target and none is lost as bullet deformation, heat, sound, or deformation of the target. The real work is obviously a whole lot less efficient.

Let's take a 140 grain bullet at 2800fps hitting a ~100lb (699,860 grain) target with some constants to correct for units.

KE=MV ^2= 140x2800x2800/450,240 = 2438 ft-lbs of energy

Momentum= MV = 140x2800/7000 = 56 lb-ft of momentum.

The resulting velocity of the target would be:

140x2800/700,000 = 0.56 fps That would also give the target 56 lb-ft of momentum as that was what was transferred.

Put another way, if in this perfect scenario the target was on a frictionless surface it would gain a velocity of 0.56 fps. The KE of the target is now:

700,000 x 0.56 x 0.56 / 450,240 = 0.5 ft-lbs.

Where did the "energy" go???!!!

No where. It was never transferred, because that isn't how physics works. In this case the initial momentum of the bullet and the resulting momentum of the target+bullet are exactly the same. In the real work it is always much less.

Newton laid all of this out in the 1600s when he said that for a given velocity with a blunt projectile penetration in noncohesive media was directly proportional to the ratio of their densities and projectile length (which is directly proportional to mass given a blunt shape and directly proportional to momentum since it is for a fixed velocity)

PS, this is an enjoyable thread.

Bob, I'll inform you that my eyes are easily crossed with this stuff.

I'm glad you are enjoying this thread. So am I.

It's a pleasure to engage with folks who can talk over my head. Good job.

In practically all issues in life, over time, I have learned that at least for me, the challenge is to keep it simple. It is no problem at all to make it complicated. But to keep it simple is difficult, at least in my experience. That applies to construction projects, restoration of boats, etc., darn near everything. And it applies to this subject as well.

I accept, appreciate and understand Newton's third law:

"A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. ... These two forces are called action and reaction forces and are the subject of Newton's third law of motion. Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

ki·net·ic en·er·gy
/kəˈnedik ˈenərjē/
nounPhysics
noun: kinetic energy; plural noun: kinetic energies
energy that a body possesses by virtue of being in motion.

So, the push and pull, the action and reaction is energy. It is specifically energy by virtue of the bullet (body) being in motion (velocity), and the reciprocal energy is the damage to the tissue as a result of the opposite reaction.


Perhaps I was incorrect in calling it a transfer of energy. but the interaction is definitely damaging to both bodies, and that in fact is the intent of shooting a bear in the first place.

The bullet shedding energy seems a no-brainer to me, and the bear's body pushes back, and sheds energy too. The end result is that both bodies will settle to no energy as the motion of the bullet stops. But before that, there is lots of push and pull, action and reaction, and to measure that one needs only to measure the kinetic energy of one body in motion - the bullet. Per Newton, the opposite reaction will be the same as the calculated energy of the bullet in motion. Both the bullet and the bear are damaged.

If a bullet, like a solid, passes through, then that energy is shed in the willows, dirt or whatever, which pushes back; anything but the bear.

I would rather the bear being the body that pushes back, and suffers the opposite and equal reaction.

Wound Ballistics: Basics and Applications
by Beat P. Kneubuehl (Editor)

This is the 2nd edition
The first was originally published in German and translated to English

Kneubueuhl also authored the book Geschoss which is in German

This might shed light on the scientific basis regarding how bullets cause wounds.

Anyway have fun

It's good enough for me to know it's a fact that bullets cause wounds.

Combine that with the fact that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

So, compute the kinetic energy of a bullet in motion, and figure that whatever it hits, air, willows, dirt, bear, there will be an opposite reaction.

Then it becomes a question of whether that energy is reacted upon in inches, or feet, or angle of willow.

That depends on bullet construction and shot placement.

But the math is what to look for regarding potential.

In my experience unless you hit the central nervous system results are not invariably the same. I've killed large bull elk with a 270 Win 150g Partition and had them drop immediately at both 15 yards and 300 yards with a high heart/lung broadside shot. With the same rifle / cartridge /shot placement combination I've shot a mule deer doe at 20 yards and her scamper away then drop dead 20 seconds later.

My one brown bear I hit perfectly with a 300g A-Frame at 13 yards. It traversed the bear diagonally, blew out his hear and lungs and he was spouting blood everywhere, yet he lived for five minutes waiting on his blood trail.

This is my dangerous game rifle of choice. .505 caliber, 570 grain bullet at 2150 fps., 5850 ft/lbs of muzzle energy, 22 inch barrel, weight 8 3/4 pounds. Given my age and infirmity, I will never make it to Alaska or the Yukon, but if I could, this is what I would carry:



The cartridge is the one in the middle.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
It's good enough for me to know it's a fact that bullets cause wounds.

Combine that with the fact that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

So, compute the kinetic energy of a bullet in motion, and figure that whatever it hits, air, willows, dirt, bear, there will be an opposite reaction.

Then it becomes a question of whether that energy is reacted upon in inches, or feet, or angle of willow.

That depends on bullet construction and shot placement.

But the math is what to look for regarding potential.

The opposite and equal reaction is also when you fire the rifle.

The math will show that a 55 grain varmint bullet fired at 3600 FPS from a 22-250 has slightly more FPE than a 360 grain 45 calibrate flat point hard cast at 1400 FPS. I KNOW FOR A FACT WHICH ONE WILL PENETRATE DEEPER AND DISRUPT MORE TISSUE ON A CHARGING BEAR AND IT AINT THE 22 CALIBER. The math does not predict lethality accurately.

I didn't bother to confirm your numbers aka "calculations", so I will accept them at your word.

I thought about following up with my previous post using the 400 gr A-frame example by counterpointing with the 400 gr Speer FN as a comparison. Since the latter is a soft bullet, running it at 2500 fps will most likely not result in deeper penetration than say at 1500 fps. The opposite is likely to be true for the Swift bullet. Thus, although the SD will compute the same, different results would be expected based on knowledge of the bullet construction.

So, for whatever it's worth, I accept your argument about bullet construction being essential. I've not argued that it isn't, but argued that it is, thus we are in agreement on that.

quote:

Originally posted by xausa:
This is my dangerous game rifle of choice. .505 caliber, 570 grain bullet at 2150 fps., 5850 ft/lbs of muzzle energy, 22 inch barrel, weight 8 3/4 pounds. Given my age and infirmity, I will never make it to Alaska or the Yukon, but if I could, this is what I would carry:

When I first moved to the Island, I met a guy who was an x-logger who had a contract job with the forest service thinning trees. He lived alone in a shack across the bay, and went out most days thinning trees. He wasn't what I would call "socialized". House broke/trained, maybe. The best way to describe his character is "feral".

Anyway, he had an unusual fear and loathing of bears. His rifle of choice was a 500 A-Square. I didn't ask, and he didn't say, exactly, but I suspect he gut shot every bear he encountered over there. Gut shot so they would run off to die so he wouldn't have to answer questions.

Anyway, I was impressed with the rifle, as I am with the one shown above.

As I said before, I often "interviewed" people who had bear encounters or other experience. I didn't set it up as an interview, but like a casual conversation, clearly for them to share their experience as they wished with someone who was genuinely interested.

One of the most influential "interviews" was with a retired master guide I knew pretty well. He had a boat in the harbor that he had used as quarters for the hunters he guided. I visited with him on board. I encouraged the direction of the conversation by asking questions. One question was did he have to follow up on bears wounded by his clients, and asked for details on that, such as what did he do with the client during the follow-up. Did he let him participate or did he go by himself? He said it depended on how open the brush was and whether he trusted the client. Sometimes he served as backup and sometimes he went in alone.

The main thing I learned that influenced me the most was his rifle and ammo choice. He showed it to me. It was a 458 WM in a Mark X Mauser. He had the barrel shortened and some good iron sights installed. It had a synthetic stock with the barreled action glass bedded. the ammo he showed me was the 400 gr bear claw. I think it was the federal factory ammo, but can't remember for sure.

His choice of words was most impressive. "it just dumps um on their nose".

All the BS and pontificating aside:

Ballistic injury ( Gunshot wounds ) are caused by energy transfer PERIOD !

Yes good folks Foot pounds of it !

What is interesting about this is that right from get go there were surgeons who proposed this ( Theodor Kocher 1874 ), Confirmed by Victor Horsely in 1894

Then LB Wilson When he Wrote Dispersion of bullet energy in relation to wound effects in the Military Surgeon in 1921

Then for some or other fucked up reason hunters and lay scribes got involved and messed up the gumbo, so bad it even found its way into medical curricula until the 80's when sanity returned when on the American side of the pond Fackler took everyone to task, the Swiss and Germans always had it right so too the Swedes.

So now we are here with claims that somehow bullet parameters are the cause of a biological effect .

Some here are trying to draw a direct line between between bullet parameters and incapacitation and death

Nada !

Energy transfer injures tissue and the wound we see is the result of the gift of energy to the tissue ! Incapacitation and death is the result of the break down of physiology because of the wound.

A direct relationship exists between the bullet and wound, a direct relationship exists between the wound and the physiological response to trauma however :

A direct line cannot be drawn between bullet numbers and incapacitation and death ! Not scientifically at least !

And just to add:

From a physics perspective bullets are classified as Passive KINETIC ENERGY penetrators !

quote:

Originally posted by xausa:
This is my dangerous game rifle of choice. .505 caliber, 570 grain bullet at 2150 fps., 5850 ft/lbs of muzzle energy, 22 inch barrel, weight 8 3/4 pounds. Given my age and infirmity, I will never make it to Alaska or the Yukon, but if I could, this is what I would carry:



The cartridge is the one in the middle.

No flies on that rifle.

Meself, I'd go inexpensive and similarly light: a 416 Ruger Alaskan. Without having ever been to Alaska I have implicit trust in that tool. By the time I'd get to Alaska I'd be in my 70's, and a 416 is just cozy.

quote:

From a physics perspective bullets are classified as Passive KINETIC ENERGY penetrators !

Yes sir, just what I need.
Something passive that my tool can direct 100% and a case full of powder that can kick the bullet in the butt.

Passive as opposed to active where in the latter propulsion is derived from part of the missile.

In the passive penetrator once the missile is launched it loses velocity over distance.

Also the missile itself carries no explosive
it penetrates and destroys the target purely by virtue of kinetic energy transfer.

xausa,

Your pick of bear rifle is more than adequate to say the least. Excellent .505 SRE wildcat there, but wouldn't a .458 WIN do just as well on those big, fat bears?
Alf says the .458 WIN is top pick according to science and philosophy.
When do I get to visit your farm and arsenal?

Rip ...

From 4sixteen's link:

BUSTER BULLET
DEEP PENETRATING HUNTING BULLETS HANDGUNS & LEVER RIFLES
Barnes offers new heavy-for-caliber handgun and lever rifle bullets intended for hunting bear, wild boar, moose, bison, buffalo and other large—even dangerous—game. The bullet features a thick copper jacket and a heavy lead core, resulting in deep penetration and maximum weight retention.

This premium hunting bullet combines bone-crushing power with pass-through penetration. Unlike conventional expanding bullets, the Barnes Busters track straight without deflection. These tough bullets are specifically designed to deliver maximum penetration, even in large and dangerous game. In one field test, a Barnes Buster fired from a .45-70 T/C Encore drove completely through an American bison, anchoring it on the spot.

These cannelured, heavy-for-caliber bullets drive deep through dense muscle and bone. Bullets remain intact—jackets won’t separate from the core. Great for hunting hogs and tough, heavy game; it’s the ideal bullet for those who carry handguns for protection against bears in Alaska and other wilderness areas.

4sixteen has brought up a very interesting bullet that is sort of in a class by itself,
not quite a North Fork Cup Point "Solid" but indeed more of a soft:





2400 to 2500 fps from the .458 WIN (SAAMI or LongCOL) might make it expand better than it does from a .45-70 ...
You would not even need to drill the pinhole in nose to a bigger hole size.









Pinhole at thick copper base too ... soft lead core inside a copper tube that is pinched closed at both ends.
Is this good for bear or too tough?
Or not tough enough for use in a .458 WIN?

Rip ...

Roundnose solids penetrate better only in first-order media with some tail slap to keep the bullet on course.
I.E., a stack of plywood.
That is not game tissue that is also mixed with higher order aqueous and visco-elastic media,
except for limited areas like in an elephant skull where there is enough spongy bone to keep the
round nose from going squirrely for a very brief while, hopefully allowing the round nose to tumble inside the brain of the elephant, and scramble it well.
Shoot a big fat bear and the roundnose solid might veer off at a weird angle inside the bear.
Just an academic point.
And I still can't believe it has taken me more than 15 years to read this thread.



Rip ...

I first hunted Kodiak with a .340 Wby deer rifle.
An 8-footer pressed his nose on my tent one moonless night,
and I felt the ground trembling as he walked around my tent on the shore of Spiridon Lake near Spiridon Bay.

The second time I hunted Kodiak I had a resident brown bear drawing permit for Jap Bay, and I carried a .375 Wby.
I chased King Kong Bear, but I did not get him.

I packed a .500 A-Square on Hinchinbrook Island as backup for a Cost Guard buddy who was carrying a 350 Mashburn.

Next time I go back to Kodiak I will be packing a .458 WIN.

This looks like Hinchinbrook Island landscape:



This looks like Kamchatka Peninsula:



Rip ...

The bottom picture is some place in Russia.

But both give a idea what a big bear is.

After standing next to a full body mount in the anchorage airport. I decided my 06 just wasn't big enough.

So I built a 416 Taylor if go on a brown bear I ever go on a brown bear hunt.

Pin hole-Nonsolid soft-point .

One way to get around the prohibition against solids.

An excellent book on the subject.

Notice that it is momentum that is measurable in a bullet impact, not kinetic energy.

u

JWP 475 !
Yes Macpherson Absolutely have you actually read it ?

There are two editions of his book

His WTI index ( Wound Trauma Incapacitation) is based on experimental work done on the "wound" volume on shots fired by handgun bullets into gelatine. He discounts energy as the source of damage based on the premise that a bullet fired into water deposits all of its energy into the water and no damage is done to the water ? This assumption is of course incorrect as the temperature of the water actually increased and if the bullet is retained in the water so has the potential energy of the water. Further this water is a liquid and gelatine and muscle are solids.

McPherson further implies that in the case of tissue the mechanical properties in the tissue determines how much work the bullet does on the tissue and hence the damage

This of course is exactly what I have been saying all along.

In 1908 Prof C. G. SPENCER, Professor of War Surgery at the Royal Army Medical College, London, publishes a book with the title “Gunshot Wounds”

This book can be downloaded for free from the web.

Spencer not unlike modern thinking and teaching attributes bullet effectiveness to two main factors.

on page 15 he writes:

(1) Its energy, and
(2) The facility with which it converts its energy into work on striking.

under point two
he lists further

1. Bullet cross sectional area
2. The bullets propensity to deform or fragment
3. The important ! The resistance the bullet is met with . ie the mechanical properties of the target

The Wound is the result of how much resistance the target presents the bullet with and the amount of energy needed to overcome it !

The late Carl Sellier who co authored The first edition of Wound ballistics and the scientific background with Knuebeuhl

Devised a bullet effectiveness criterion based on what he called a retardation coefficient

He further showed that a bullets effectiveness is directly proportional to its impact energy and inversely proportional to its sectional density

this is basically in line with modern teaching in Combat surgery and is in line with the Red Cross's ballistic injury scores used by Nato and taught in combat surgery

There have been numerous attempts at quantifying bullet effectiveness and many are invalid !

Momentum based formulae cannot be applied to ballistic injury to living tissue

So Hatchers "relative stopping power" and John Taylors "knock out" value are out !

Energy based criteria like
Hatcher Stopping power and Matunas's Power index Sellier' formula and Weigel's formula ( Sellier and Weigel use coefficients to account for unknowns) , problem is it is not the pre impact energy that does the damage its the transferred energy that is important . ( again exactly what I have said all along ) Bullet kinetic energy values are indication of potential only not actual damage done.

Indexes that use wound volume as criterion such as Macpherson and Berlin also introduce introduced constants and their ability to actually measure wound cavity volume is basically lab based and not reproducible on living tissue

A pendulum with a block of wood is not needed to calculate kinetic energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion

================================================

There is something significant that we have apparently been ignoring re kinetic energy. The rotation or spin of the bullet.

It can be calculated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ergy#Rotating_bodies

Rotating bodies
If a rigid body Q is rotating about any line through the center of mass then it has rotational kinetic energy, which is simply the sum of the kinetic energies of its moving parts

================================================

I wonder - did the block of wood on the pendulum rotate in proportion to whether the barrel had a 14" twist rate or 20" twist rate and so forth? Was the block of wood rotation sufficiently measurable to enable one to calculate the twist rate of the barrel without measuring the actual barrel?

================================================

Alf, you do remember the chapter in his book that explains why kinetic energy is not useful in calculating the wound channel do you not not

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
A pendulum with a block of wood is not needed to calculate kinetic energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion

================================================

There is something significant that we have apparently been ignoring re kinetic energy. The rotation or spin of the bullet.

It can be calculated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ergy#Rotating_bodies

Rotating bodies
If a rigid body Q is rotating about any line through the center of mass then it has rotational kinetic energy, which is simply the sum of the kinetic energies of its moving parts

================================================

I wonder - did the block of wood on the pendulum rotate in proportion to whether the barrel had a 14" twist rate or 20" twist rate and so forth? Was the block of wood rotation sufficiently measurable to enable one to calculate the twist rate of the barrel without measuring the actual barrel?

Before electronic chronograph their was no there way to calculate energy because the velocity was not know. The fact is kinetic energy is not measured, but the momentum is, with the known weight of the projectile and the measured momentum the velocity could be found and then the kinetic energy calculated.

Magine Enigam

By rotational energy I assume you are referring to rotation around the long axis of the bullet ?

If so rotational energy is actually negligible ! when compared to translational energy

One can do the math . If one calculates the rotational velocity of the projectile mathematically and then rotational energy as consequence of it the values are very very small and the contribution to the wound profile small.

Rotation around the CG as with a tumbling bullet is off course another issue altogether !

Another thought: Since there is obviously energy in the rotation of the bullet, which would be more disruptive - the solid as it passes through or something like a 350 gr .458 Barnes, fully mushroomed, with those sharp blades rotating like a buzz saw? (producing all that drag )

Ah the ballistic pendulum and Benjamin Robin's description of it in Benjamin Robins: The New Principles of Gunnery 1742

He fires lead balls into blocks of oak.... only problem is the balls deform !

Leonard Euler translates New Principles and he come up with...... wait for it ......

Energy density !


Robins:
Penetration depth (P) = V squared

Euler:

P = TE / D squared
P = penetration depth
T = constant for the material target
E = kinetic energy of the projectile
D = diameter of the projectile

So Euler is likely the first scientist to recognize that energy is important and so is the representative surface area

Ie energy per unit of surface area.
Euler described this interaction as

P = T E / d squared
Or if you wish

P = T ½ MV squared / A

From this we see the relationship between a projectiles mass divided by it’s ortrhgraphic surface area
m/A

This was not just theory, it was derived from experiment !

Shooting musket balls at known velocity into targets and deriving calculation of energy deposited in the target.

The heavier ball loses less energy during penetration than the light ball

The heavier ball penetrates deeper than the light ball

Velocity is a very strong predictor of drag . So by doubling velocity we actually quadruple force of retardation

Buzz saw does not happen, go do the math !
A bullet fired from a 30-06 coming to a stop in a target does but a few full revolutions before coming to a stop

quote:

After standing next to a full body mount in the anchorage airport. I decided my 06 just wasn't big enough.

So I built a 416 Taylor if go on a brown bear I ever go on a brown bear hunt.

P Dog,
I would feel the same and think that the current 416 Ruger is about the same solution.