Overkill,
Are Swedish moose really so tiny? This makes me suspect your moose hunting credentials.

Can another Scandinavian confirm that 300 kilograms is a big moose in Sweden?

A really big Alaska-Yukon bull moose is almost twice that size.

Damn goats screwed up my phone line again, about 20th time in less than 2 months. Don�t know if you know what cabrito is, shredded goat meat, a mexican dish. Since I got my 50 cal, been making joke: I could use to kill, gut, shred and cook with one of the incendiary rounds

quote:

---

Originally posted by Harald:
DHA (Rob), you're not making any more of an ass of yourself than a great many others (and its always heartening to see a true believer of science in the forum)

---

Damn, I'll have to try harder!

You are very right about the force-energy thing, I wasn't being as precise as I usually try to be, and I am rethinking some things, but it is still clear that you ain't gonna knock and flip a guy with a hit from a gun that just kicks 'a bit'. I DO understand integrating the force over time, that gives you the energy, as you mentioned my pushing analogy said as much. There can�t be more energy delivered to target than is delivered to gun/shooter, not if their ain't the little rocket motors in the arse end of the bullets. . But damn, I can't quite figure out what I was trying to say now, you done gone and confused my poor gray matter, I might actually go crack a book now, I hate that, too many years of schooling, don't want to go find my freshman physics text, that could take a couple of days, moved recently, most of my over 1000 books still boxed and there ain't no organization to the boxing, I think I will go to internet, alot easier than digging up a book, at least for this vodka saturated thing. Great find RAB, haven�t been yet, but you know the stuff is out there.

As for not wanting to turn into physics lecture, WHY NOT? That is what it should be, with certain topics, with the obvious caveats that once a projectile enters a target as complex as animal, all bets be off, too many variables, be many years to figure that kinda stuff, if ever, the chaos thing, the physiology stuff, the variability of one animal to the next, but there still is much physics at work inside the soon to be carcass that is discussible.

Well, the goats have done it AGAIN, I am getting real hungry for some cabrito, and I don�t like cabrito!

Great discussion guys, this newbie has enjoyed.

rob the goat screwed newbie

I may be mistaken(don't think so though), but aren't what we in North America refer to as moose, called elk in Scandinavia? If that's the case, maybe Overkill is hunting the wrong animal.

Go get'em Ron. I havent seen you in action like this since the Bwana Saeed Index devlopment days. Set them all straight.

Mikeh375...!

Yes, we also say elk here in sweden. But the most pepole over here dont understand what the swedish elk is. So it is better to say moose. So they understand what kind of animal it is. (a small moose)

DaggaRon..!

Yes. A swedish moose or elk is not as big as a alaska moose. And 300-350 kg is much for a swedish moose.

DHA and Harald...!

If the bullet dont have more energy than the recoil of the rifle. How can a 300 kg barrel be knocked over with a 500 Jeffery...?

I have just read the swedish magazine "vapen tidningen" and they say that the bullet will have the same energy as the recoil. BUT the rifle is 200-300 times so heavy as bullet and the power so it dont give the same hit to the man who is behind the rifle as the bullet give to the target." The bullet leave all energy so MUCH faster in a animal than the recoil do to the shooter.

So if you have a rifle like the .700 BMG IMPROVED and a weight of 12 kg(heavy). And the rifle still kick you very hard. Then you have a good stopping rifle.

RAB,
now you got the moment of inertia, we could go further: how to determine it. You may calculate it from basic figures, or experimental from the cycle time of the pendulum around its different axis, or even get rid of it by using approximations.
But why? We have now the chronographs.

But the problem is, how to convince people like Overkill et al. of the fact, that shooting in sand filled big targets is nonsense, may be fun in observing nothing.
Norbert

Well guys
this has been fun, now we should go to the quantum chromodynamics of shooting a moose versus a sand bag. This has become strange, is the moose charmed, this is on the top of my mind, this topic has bottomed out. What gauge would be too weak to take out the moose if hit on it�s toe, would it help to glue on a target, do you have a strong opinion on this? I don�t want to color the discussion, or string this along, it�s already expanded a bit much. The whole thread has had it's ups and downs, it's a little qui(a)rky.
QED
Damn, sorry about that.
Rob, the guy who hopes he sounds relative(istic)

[ 07-22-2002, 22:39: Message edited by: deranged-havoc-aficionado ]

Just to put the record straight concerning the weight of Swedish moose. I've seen several bulls that weighed between 500-650 kg "on the hoof". The largest I've heard about from "up north" weighed approx. 800 kg. 300 kg could of course be used a an average (although low) for all adult moose shot since the cows are much smaller than the bulls. Also the moose are smaller in size in the south of Sweden.

And, for the last time, nobody says "elk" in Sweden! We have a word for moose (�lg) that is similar in pronunciation but this doesn't make it the same. Elk is an English word for a different animal!

Well, I got the 'smack' part, there's a heroine dealer on the forum. No, seriously, can anyone translate? The romance languages, I can figure a little bit out usually, but, damn, not a glimmer here.
thanks
rob the swedish (and spelling) challenged poster

Mats...!

HA HA HA HA fan vad du var negativ jag pratar om slakt vikt..! �r det inte det som r�knas??

� h�rdu jag har skujutit p� en 25 liters dunk fylld med sand och den fl�g 1 m bak�t fr�n bordet den stog p�. N�r jag sk�t den med min .460 WBY s� br�ka inte om det. Ja ja en 300 kilos dunk kanske inte r�r sig s� mycket

Overkill has gotten me interested in this stopping power thing.

Who makes the best bulldozer?

Where is the best place to get a camo paint job, and which pattern would be best for Africa?

Who makes the best "silencers" for bulldozers? Most of the ones I have heard don't work all that well.

How much will a good used bulldozer cost?

Is a bulldozer big enough to stop an elephant?

Some buddy who knows please help me with this.

Considering how fast a cat goes, I think getting one of those funny looking helicopters that can lift outrageous masses would be best, then just drop the cat on the elephant
I am getting silly again.
rob the guy who wore cat caps sitting on tractor in texas in august with no umbrella for all 4 summers of high school years--kinda explains some things... Damn, this is longer than the message

[ 07-23-2002, 19:48: Message edited by: deranged-havoc-aficionado ]

I can not control myself to add some physics against the nonsense of moving back big masses by a bullet.
Shooting in a sand filled target follows the principles of inelastic collision of a small moving mass with a big resting mass. Important is only the conservation of momentum.
An approximation of the ballistic pendulum is v = (m + M)/m * (2gh)^1/2. h is the height the pendulum shows after impact.


Further calculation (from h and M) shows, that only about 0.15 % of the kinetic energy of the bullet is transferred to the pendulums mechanical energy (potential energy). 98.5 % of the energy is eaten up by deformation, friction etc. And that is, how a bullet works in an animal.

[ 07-24-2002, 19:37: Message edited by: Norbert ]

Thanks y'all.

DaggaRon, I should perhaps actually read Parker Ackley before I speculate, but I suspect that some of those fellows (and I include practically everyone prior to the introduction of optical or electronic chronographs) just guessed at the velocity.

Rob, the energy delivered to the shooter is far less than the energy of the bullet leaving the muzzle. Its that velocity squared thing. The force applied (over time) to the burning gases and the bullet is exactly the same as that applied to the rifle and if we assume that it is rigid, discounting spring-dampers systems like the recoil pad, then its the same force you feel in your shoulder.

The force felt by the tissues of the game directly in front of the bullet exactly corresponds to the force exerted on the bullet as it penetrates. The force exerted on the surrounding tissues along the path of the bullet is not the same, but is related geometrically to this bullet nose force and elastically and plastically damped, so that the final momentum delivered to the animal is a radially expanding (and therefore generally balanced) load. Bullets which penetrate well, like solids deliver less linear momentum in the direction of their progress than bullets which promote a more violent radial cavitation. The bullet does not shove a column of tissue ahead of it. The tissue is diverted radially away, and if the bullets penetrates like gangbusters then it can zip right through will almost no imparted motion in the direction of its travel. Very little movement of the total animal is imparted (if any), though violent movement occurs inside. When all that movement ceases all that remains of the energy that was carried there by the bullet (now resting under the hide) is in the form of a minute temperature rise in the affected tissue and the bullet.

Hello Harald,
Thanks for the reply, but you are beginning to depress me and make me feel stupid,

quote:

---

the energy delivered to the shooter is far less than the energy of the bullet leaving the muzzle. Its that velocity squared thing. The force applied (over time) to the burning gases and the bullet is exactly the same as that applied to the rifle and if we assume that it is rigid, discounting spring-dampers systems like the recoil pad, then its the same force you feel in your shoulder.

---

Don�t you mean peak energy? If the force is the same, and I did say energy delivered to combined rifle and shooter, and you integrate over time, how can the energy be far less? I always had difficulty with the KE vs momentum thing and what the implications were, mechanics were not my strong point. BUT, is not the force integrated over time equal to energy? I really should have cracked a book . Or is that work? Now I be confusing myself. I think work is energy integrated over time, power, which is also important here is energy divided by time. But you can see in one of my absurd number of posts on this thread that I did say the dissipation of energy in target is probably incalculable, but depends on how fast the bullet is slowed, where it is slowed, and disintegration effects(I didn�t actually state it in that detail, but that is what I was thinking, cut me some slack, please, I be gettin awfully gray/decrepit), and that dissipation over time (power) is extremely important to damage done. I have pretty much lost track of what my point is at this point, I really value the input of anybody that can explain the real physics of what is going on, it just seems very important to me.

Please, did you not even grin at my extended pun on QCD and modern physics? I would be so disappointed if NOBODY enjoyed, these things just sorta pop out of my decaying gray matter.
rob, the pathetically challenged punster

[ 07-24-2002, 08:15: Message edited by: deranged-havoc-aficionado ]

How could the fact that one load will knock said volume of sand off a chair while another will not, NOT have any bearing on their capabilities? Seems to me that people are just blowing off the facts.

Saeed,

Are you suggesting that a 300 grn bullet launched @ 3140 fs will not exit an impala 100 yds off? If so they are much tougher than I thought.

The problem with comparing the sand bucket with hunting or hollywood is in fact a matter of physics. A bullet is able to knock over the barrel because the energy is transfered immediatly to the rigid base and its impetus becomes greater than the gravity keeping the sand on the chair as opposed to being slowly reduced by a more absorbent target and quite often never completly absorbed (see exit wound). Same thing as the old dry stick will break but the green one will bend cliche or the same difference between jumping off a building onto a street of diving into water.
But this doesnt mean that a bullets energy cannot be measured in a meaningfull manner.
Applying these amounts of energy "to hunting in a meaningfull manner" is a lot tougher to do though, because of the variables in hunting, but does that mean we as hunters should ignore energy?

I submit that if John Wayne were shot with Saeeds T-Rex and he was wearing a bullet proof vest that he would at least take a few steps back if not land on his arss.. If he were still alive of corse..
Also maybe someone could enlighten me as to what recoil has to do with all this.. Suggesting that recoil energy will knock over the same amount of sand that a bullet will seems like saying that a jackhammer operator could use his tool upside down and get the same results, it seems ludicrous to me but what do I know. Maybe all we need to do is put the butt end of any rifle up against containers of sand on a chair and fire away while reducing the sand until it moves, write down the results and voila! we have the Overkill energy standard..
I guess if a guy knocks 5 lbs of dirt 4 inches with a 30-06 and 1/2 lb of dirt 1 inch with a 22 it would prove just that and not much more, where it seems to me that such tests could be usefull is with big bores and hunting where large amounts of energy are nessesary. Say for instance will a 45-70 move enough sand to make it a viable choice for Cape Buff??? We already have a real good idea of the answer, we just dont know how much sand were talking about..


Sometimes I wonder a lot about what energy variables "really" are especially with different bullets and different loads. Theres no way that all 200 grn bullets produce the same amounts of energy given the different designs and reactions to impact.

[ 07-24-2002, 09:52: Message edited by: Wstrnhuntr ]

DHA,

quote:

---

BUT, is not the force integrated over time equal to energy? I really should have cracked a book . Or is that work? Now I be confusing myself. I think work is energy integrated over time, power, which is also important here is energy divided by time.

---

work is force * way (cm) or mass * way * acceleration. (only with acc. we have time as 1/s^2)
energy is the amount of work in a system.
power is the ability to do work in a time. Work/time.
So power integrated over time is work = energy. Not force.

Damnit, ya�ll done gone and made me actually use my brain! I hate that, I been trying real hard to not ever have to do that again.
Assume target and shooter equal mass
Power is how much energy is sunk/used/dissipated -instantaneously-not integrated over time
Work is amount of energy expended over a given time
Integrate work over time ya get total energy
integrate the integral of power over time, double integral, ya get total energy (I be a bit shakey on this one, but am pretty sure, don�t want to go find books)
The shooter probably absorbs energy over 100 ms? I know he ain�t quit moving, but done absorbed all the energy he�s going to
target, maybe 10 ms (I am just grabbing numbers out of thin air, did Hatcher look into any of this, it�s been over 15 years since I read any of his stuff, didn�t he use live privates for some of his stuff?)
So, assume a 10-1 ratio in power.
energy will of course be conserved
so, amount of work done will be conserved also, it�s all in the timing
So this implies a 10-1 ratio of force
this implies a 10-1 ratio of acceleration
Of course I realize there are still timing aspects, especially on target, trajectory through the body is too complex to even begin to analyze, -there is bone impact, tough tissue vs soft tissue etc, somebody a hell of a better than me gonna have to look into that, then of course there are the angular momentum issues, so lets assume all forces at center of mass
OK, what have I missed. Isn�t it just a timing issue? The energy is dissipated in shooter at a different rate than in target? You could get a little fancy with force graphs over time etc. But still, a force 10 times as high but for 1/10 as long, if someone shot his twin, is his body going to act much differently? as in how much movement, etc? I realize gun in one twin hand, vs hit in shoulder.. makes a difference, blah blah.

Alright, I be done here
rob, the guy who is heading for the aspirin bottle

Rob, I really don't mean to make you feel stupid. This is not intuitive, so its certainly not a question of intelligence.

I think you basically understand the mechanics of a bullet's acceleration in a target, how the energy is dissipated, converted to kinetic energy of target matter, etc. What you have tangled is the balance of forces with conservation of energy.

Energy is conserved in the sense that it is neither created nor destroyed (actually that is really only true of mass-energy, but we are not talking nuclear events here). But, you don't need to worry about conservation of energy except to calculate the total energy of the gun system (KE of bullet, KE of gases, KE of rifle, heat to barrel, entropy, etc.) and the total energy of the penetration event. The recoil is usually calculated from the thrust delivered by the exiting propellant gases at the muzzle and the velocity of the bullet. The KE of the bullet is not even involved.

To further clarify a misconception, energy is not balanced in the gun except between the propellant in its pre-ignited state and the various contributors to total energy of the gun system described above. You never equate the KE of the gun and the bullet. Totally different and that's a good thing.

However, the force applied to the gun by the burning propellant working against the bullet and the bore friction is exactly balanced. In the axial direction, the force applied to the base of the bullet is that applied to the rifle (actually, in supersonic gas flows there is a "springy" connection between these two since the gases are not a rigid linkage, but the force is balanced at the base of the bullet with the gas and at the breech of the rifle with the gas in the chamber).

Energy is the integral of force acting over a distance: E = Integral ( F ds ). Momentum impulse is the integral of force over time: I = Integral (F dt ). Energy is also the time integral of power (single integral only): E = Integral (P dt ).

What all this rambling amounts to is this: the KE of the bullet is (let's say) 5000 ft-lbs, and the corresponding KE of the rifle is more like 50 ft-lbs, a 100:1 difference (and Thank Goodness!). The force felt by bullet and rifle are the same at each instant of time in the bullet's travel down the barrel. The momentum impulse of the rifle is the same as that of the bullet and gases taken together.

Hope this tickles the little gray cells without causing any to fail. Good questions.

Thanks for response Harald, if I really try to understand, I will kill a whole bunch of those cells, and I been losing'em quite a bit, but I probably will at some point. Once you brought in 'impulse', now you be talking 'rocket science'!
I don't mind being made to feel stupid, it happens all the time! I think that is a good thing, makes ya motivated to learn! Ya know, an anacephalic really isn't any more ignorant than Einstein, it's all in the understanding of large numbers, people think I be crazy, I just think a little differently, NOt incorrectly hee hee(except for that spelling problem).

Please check out my post on the trebuchet, the ultimate 'big bore', somebody sent me a video, it is hilarious, highly recommend that you check out.
rob, the guy who can't get enough of havoc

Guys...!

I have not think about that the bullet leave all the energy fast to the target or "at once" Oh my.. think about when a 750 grain bullet at 2500 f/s leave all the energy at once.... It is able to knock over a buffalo then. My barrel that I shoot with my .460 was knocked down and the I hit just in the under side of the barrel. I can just see what will happend with a 50 kg barrel if it is shoot with a .600 NE in the top of the barrel. "All the recoil energy at once at the barrel"

I forgot another fact against the nonsense of moving back big masses or animals by the momentum of a bullet:
Any observant hunter may agree, that with good body shots an animal falls onto the side of the bullet�s entrance, it is not pushed back by the bullets momentum.

Norbert...!

Think like this. You put on body armor and then I shoot you with a .700 BMG IMPROVED ( A 1200 GRAIN BULLET AT 2600 FPS= 18 000 FT.IBS...!

Do you think that you will stand after that???

Why did I have to go and check out that thread again, it made me determined to find my 26 year old freshman physics book, thank god it was in only the third of about 40 boxes.

Force = m x a >>>newtons(nt)*kg*meters(m)/seconds^^2 this is an instantaneous property
kinetic energy(ke) is � mass*meters/s^^2 this is an instantaneous property
work is delta ke delta just means change, as in my bank balance delta would be huge and negative if I bought one of those beautiful double rifles it is something that occurs over a given time Dimensional analysis gives the units to be newton*meter and has been given name joule. but since delta ke is just two of the same dimensional quantities, then ke is also joules, but is not a vector but a scalar(don�t ask if you don�t know, I ain�t gonna spend that much time-do you enjoy sines and cosins and arctangents?)

So, 100 kg man shoots a 500 gr round that leaves barrell with 50,000 nt of ke-a little over 10,000 ft-lb very rough for ease of use
assume the acceleration uniform and the guy didn�t know much about shooting and the gun was around his naval maybe higher, the center of mass, don�t want any rotational effects getting involved, gun mass makes a difference, but probably just around 5%.

work done is equal to the total change in ke over the time the force is acting
the work done on the shooter is equal to the work done on the bullet or energy would have been lost-force is instantaneous property, so bullet and shooter at any given time will experience the same force, and integrated over the same time period means they are equal, also means since work is ke-ke or 0- muzzle ke, this implies the same energy for each

the work done on the target is equal to the same work because the ke of the bullet is the same because it�s velocity goes from muzzle velocity to 0, remember it is ke initial -ke final. It hits with velocity equal to the muzzle velocity because we are ignoring the small complications like air resistance and rotational/torque type effects and that the bullet does not exit the animal. it doesn�t matter what it does inside, bone, cartilage, tendon, soft flesh, it is purely an initial-final equation.

so, it comes down to the implications of the difference of doing the same amount of work on 100 kg man and a 5,000 kg rabbit (ever seen �Night of the Lupus? )

ke is 1/2mv^^2 , you got 1/50 in mass relationship so velocity change is: 1v^^2=.50v^2or .1/50v^^2=v^2 oe 50^.5 (square root) is the velocity change in the bunny-50^.5 is 7+. or the bunny gonna have a velocity 1/7 the shooters. Of course, this says nothing about killing/knockdown potential, just wanted to show stories of animals being flung backwards are lies or were a physical reaction/spasm from getting shot. My dad shot a jackrabbit with a 410, that sucker flew 10 feet, but it was straight up! Kapish (sp ? got know idea)?

that bunny ain�t gonna be flipping over backwards, and if you shoot your twin in the exact same center of force that the rifle butt acts on you he will end up moving backwards as much as the kick did to you.

Therefore, QED, I proved my initial assertion from long ago on this thread that energy imparted is equal to energy absorbed

Can any of you guys point out the flaw in this analysis, I knew once I cracked a book I good get my scat together and figure it out, this is stuff I haven�t had to really think about in over 25years.

So come on harald and I forgot the name of the other guy who was good at this stuff, where am I wrong? I really think this is the proper analysis, but we all know where thinking gets me.
rob, the guy who has to go shoot a hundred rounds or so now to get rid of the brain pain.

ps will add new thread with this, as well as add here, make it mote likely people will read-or maybe not with my handle as thread starter, oh well, they wouldn�t understand anyway.

How about getting a really pissed-off buffalo, lion, leopard, hippo, etc and stuffing them into one or more of your barrels so you can shoot it a few times....then...put your rifle down and walk up to see how powerful your stopping rifle was.

Saeed.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, would someone please explain to me what happened to all that energy!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saeed: Most of this energy is transfered to Roy Weatherby, and blow out both of his main gastric ports, mouth and ass.


OK has been sucking on one of those ports for WAY too long.


I STRONGLY suggest OK, that you go to the zoo. Get really close, like RIDE an elephant, or pet one. Get a real good idea of the size of the animal you are trying to hit with that tiny little 500 grain WBY Bullshit round, and get over you are going to 'shock' or stop, any pissed off african elephant without hitting a vital organ, nerve center, or system, or breaking large bones.

Also, keep in mind, you don't have much time, since they can run at 40 miles an hour, and, once they know you are trying to kill them, and they will know it, because they know what guys with rifles look like, and you piss em off by missing, you better have a hell of a lot bigger rifle then a 460 to stop em, and, you better hit something vital with it.

As for human sized or deer sized targets, yes, velocity makes a bit of a splash, knocking around
fluids and causing more of an impact. However, as the mass of the animal increases, and the toughness, our little rifles can't do shit, except with accuracy, and penetration, at least nothing we can fire from our shoulders...except, maybe, a 2 bore...

s

Overkill, to prove your energy theories into pendulum type barrels, you need a pendulum at each end. Hang your sand filled barrels at one end. Then hang your loaded 460 Wby at the other end. Stand 6 inches behind the Wby. Pull the trigger with a string. Post your findings. I think you will have a whole new respect for momentum theory. - Dan

Another aspect on this debate.....
Scenario 1 - You are smacked in the chest with a fist by a large and angry man.
Scenario 2 - A small and lightly built person pushes a sharp rapier through your chest.

Question:- Which one applies more energy to your body?...... and which one kills you??

Here is my totaly useless opinion. Any cun/caliber of proper power and PENITRATION can be a stopping rifle. Here is the trick part... is the shooter capable of makeing a stopping shot. For this test have a 6" or so size target run towards you somehow at 15mph and hit it EVERY time. Presto.

Hey guys.
I think I can say with some certainty that we done gone WAY beyond beatin a dead equine, we be whacking away on a can of dog food now, or even obviating the need for a pooper scooper.
rob the guy who is going to prove in the affirmative his earlier thread "Am I an idiot" soon

[ 09-18-2002, 10:44: Message edited by: deranged-havoc-aficionado ]

"Any cun/caliber of proper power and PENITRATION can be a stopping rifle. Here is the trick part... is the shooter capable of makeing a stopping shot. For this test have a 6" or so size target run towards you somehow at 15mph and hit it EVERY time. Presto. "

NO> The target is best something like a remote control car, with a balloon on the antenna, coming at you, zig zagging, at 35 miles an hour.

And, it better be a small balloon...

Oh, and the one that usually gets you is the cape buffalo on the side, that's pissed you just shot his life long friend, mate, or whatever.

Hippos are even worse...
s