It lists popular carts & Taylor Knock Out factors.

This is even better...check out my 4 Bore...2000grains at 1500fps and 1.00 bore size!

http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/downloads/taylor.html

Here's even more information http://sst.benchrest.com

It's a shame that we can't get these nice, neat numbers to model our messy reality very cleanly.

At least they give us something to argue about.

Like all other knock-out formulae, it is unfortunately a bunch of junk!

Read this and the next lot to see why.

Sooooooooooooooooo, my cast bullet training load for the 505 Gibbs consisting of a 650gr hard cast bullet in front of 120gr of IMR7828 at a clocked MV of 2030fps does produce a TKO value of 95.xx It also does not recoil very much. I shot several rounds off of the bench this am.

Rich

Jagter,

it may be "junk" by your estimation, but the higher the value the more efficacious the effect on dangerous game seems to be. Must be a major coincidence, eh?

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Jagter:
Like all other knock-out formulae, it is unfortunately a bunch of junk!

Read this and the next lot to see why.

As is both papers and the author.

All of the math is good but how this math is applied to determine a definitive value and/or answer is theory. Too often those in lab coats disregard proven field results in favor of artificial lab results, I disagree w/ this method. Just as bad, some that experience favorable field results will often make up non-scientific theories to explain their results, I also disagree with this method. I favor good lab theories that are validated by real world proven track records. I firmly believe that the diameter of the projectile as well as its shape and design can give more value to the end results than KE allows. TKO has its place as does KE, as well as several of the other theories often cited. None are gospel but all can be voodoo magic BS if not backed up by field results.

GVA

quote:

Originally posted by GaryVA:

quote:

Originally posted by Jagter:
Like all other knock-out formulae, it is unfortunately a bunch of junk!

Read this and the next lot to see why.

As is both papers and the author.

All of the math is good but how this math is applied to determine a definitive value and/or answer is theory. Too often those in lab coats disregard proven field results in favor of artificial lab results, I disagree w/ this method. Just as bad, some that experience favorable field results will often make up non-scientific theories to explain their results, I also disagree with this method. I favor good lab theories that are validated by real world proven track records. I firmly believe that the diameter of the projectile as well as its shape and design can give more value to the end results than KE allows. TKO has its place as does KE, as well as several of the other theories often cited. None are gospel but all can be voodoo magic BS if not backed up by field results.

GVA

Yep! Take things with a grain of salt! But don't be a skeptic!

quote:

If anyone reading this is disgusted with my notion of a "simple" model of bullet penetration, understand that much of my motivation for developing and publishing this model was to illustrate just how difficult it is to accurately estimate real performance. This is why the kinds of shortcut calculations we've all seen fall flat when you get to specifics.

That's why Taylor and other lesser competent followers' knock-out values could never have been of much value.

Read this to see how difficult it really is to come to something which is scientifically far more correct than any KO's presented before this.

Modeling real life results is indeed very difficult if not impossible, due to a myriad of imponderables. TKO and KOV formulas are attempts, albeit very crude and non-scientific, to avoid the complexities of mathematics and science that still fall short in 2006 for us to get to a definitive model that can be used by the everyday hunter that never progressed beyond matric mathematics.

It only serves as a guideline for relative comparison off-field. We know that no 2 shots are the same. We know that different bullets behave differently, etc. So, yes it is no more than numbers on a particular dial.

At least there seems to be a far greater correlation to field results than with KE that produces some very strange and misleading numbers, despite its universal acceptance of being pure science.

Nobody promised that it would be easy. My advice: positively reject anything that is of no use or guide you to a better decision.

I actually closed my article off with this summary:-

1) The following main factors are influencing a bullet's performance:-

a) Velocity ...either too low (poor penetration), or too high (bullet failure)

b) Distance ... impact velocity should be in line with the target's distance.

c) Weight and toughness of the animal ... thin-skinned, thick-skinned or dangerous animal?

d) Construction of bullet ... conventional, partition, core bonded, solid shank or monolithic hollow point?

e) Properties of the bullet ... sectional density, form and hardness of metals

2) Calibres need to be assessed together with a specific bullet, before we can talk about the lethality of a calibre, as it is the combination that counts.

3) We cannot just purely rely on mechanical ratios such as energy or momentum; we need to consider bullet construction as well.

4) The interactive relationship of striking velocity with the construction of the bullet must be recognised as very important.

5) As the killing of animals is largely a matter of biology, shot placement becomes extremely important. For example a shot that just cuts the bottom of the animal's heart by say a mere 2 mm is not nearly as effective as a shot that cuts the aorta off at the top of the heart, as the result would be a hose-pipe gushing of blood that shuts off the delivery of oxygen to the brain almost immediately. Hits to the central nervous system, like the brain and spine, are immediately fatal. Other than this, the only reliable cause of rapid death is through haemorrhaging produced by cutting a hole through major blood-bearing organs (heart, liver & lungs) or major arteries and vessels. The size and location of the cavity will determine the rapidity of the onset of death.

Chris

quote:

At least there seems to be a far greater correlation to field results than with KE that produces some very strange and misleading numbers, despite its universal acceptance of being pure science.

This is perhaps so because people tend to forget that KE is only a very useful man-invented rating system and not the cause of any event.
Read more on this in the following article.

quote:

4) The interactive relationship of striking velocity with the construction of the bullet must be recognised as very important.

Exactly this part of it all is taken up for the first time in the article already mentioned previously.

Só, hopefully we will come out with far better results and knowledge in future about this up to now, mystical field in terminal ballistics.

gee - it doesn't do much for my 17 HMR

soooooooooooooo,
does empirical data not show us that a well constructed bullet out of a large capacity cartridge (here we need to stipulate the lower the pressure for velocity the better)to give us a MV of 2150-2250fps to be the answer? And, following that line, does not the fact that larger diameter bullet = superior terminal performance come into play?
IF so, then the old british solution of a large heavy jacketed solid or soft point of 45-58 caliber provide the "best" answer? Which the TKO numbers correlate to very closely if not identically. Problem solved. Use a .500NE 3" with Woodleigh or Northfork bullets. Or, if you are a boltgun guy, a .510 KX or similar ilk.

Rich

First, put it in the right place...

Skyler makes a very interesting observation, which is that KE and Mo are just man-invented rating systems and not the cause of any event.

In our simplistic and crude tests we have seen that Mo actually describes penetration much better than KE by way of P = Mo/Xsa. Just to illustrate the conflicting signals between Mo and KE, let us look at some practical examples of the following cartridges that we all know very well, where the KE values are the same, but Mo values differ substantially. Pondoro Taylor recognized this a long time ago that Mo is a better yardstick than KE, however crude.

Cartridge ---- Gr ------ Fps ------ Mo -------- Energy
25-06 Rem --- 117 --- 3,100 --- 51.81 ---- 2497.3
45-70 Govt -- 300 --- 1,936 --- 82.97 ---- 2497.4


30-06 Spr --- 180 --- 2,740 --- 70.46 ---- 3001.4
338 Sabi ---- 250 --- 2,325 --- 83.04 ---- 3001.5


300 Win Mag - 180 --- 2,951 --- 75.88 --- 3481.5
9,3 x62 -------- 286 --- 2,341 --- 95.65 --- 3481.2

In all cases, from Category 1 to 3, I am sure we will all pick the second alternative if we have to shoot a buffalo, asuming the same bullet type is used. What complicates the issue is to account for bullet expansion in the terminal phase even though we know the bullet's diameter exactly in its pristine condition and how that relates to the killing effect that is so awefully difficult to quantify or express. And so one only ends up with another man-made rating system.

Ultimately we will be guided as to what works in the field and even that is subjected to different opinions. One will swear by one set of parameters and another person will opt for something quite different.

The jury will be out for a very long-long time.
Chris

Well ...
We all agree bigger is better, until it's too big.
We all agree that faster is better, until it's too fast.
We all believe in accurate shot placement.
We all believe in good bullet quality.

And we all agree that getting your head knocked off your shoulders every time you pull the trigger isn't fun.

Which pretty much explains why we can't agree on anything.

quote:

Originally posted by analog_peninsula:
Well ...
We all agree bigger is better, until it's too big.
We all agree that faster is better, until it's too fast.
We all believe in accurate shot placement.
We all believe in good bullet quality.

And we all agree that getting your head knocked off your shoulders every time you pull the trigger isn't fun.

Which pretty much explains why we can't agree on anything.

Good one!

quote:

We all agree that faster is better, until it's too fast.

Count me out of that one, I do not believe in higher velocity being better for anything other than a flatter trajectory, and seeing that the ranges at which we hunt DG does not need a very flat trajectory, 2400 is more than needed. Rather use a heavier bullet if your cartridge has the capability

How difficult can it be?

Even if Ethan Skyler spelled it out that man-invented rating systems can never cause any event, we still get it wrong!

"Momentum is indicated as p=mv where m is mass and v is velocity. Because momentum depends on velocity, it too has a magnitude and a direction and is a vector quantity."

No sign of any source of energy in all these factors making up the formula.

Só, where does the energy comes from that the hunter needs to propel the bullet?

"....the only source of energy the rifle hunter has available 'is caused by the release of chemical energy of combustion, causing force, causing acceleration of the fired bullet's matter, resulting in a closing velocity being established between the fired bullet and the target'."
Read the following article for more on this topic.

Obviously we need higher acceleration to create more force (F=ma) with a bullet of a specific mass to achieve better performance.
Equally so we also need a bullet with more mass to achieve more destruction on big game.
But never can it be done without acceleration brought about "by the release of chemical energy of combustion".

Once we realise that this acceleration required results in velocity we begin to see the light, namely high velocity (different levels for different bullet weights) combined with as close as possible to perfect, bullet design, are the basics to achieve good terminal ballistic performance.

That's what the successful hunter should start off with in the first place, the real source of the energy providing the required acceleration of the bullet's matter.

The rest is useful man-invented rating systems making it easier to use.

quote:

"....the only source of energy the rifle hunter has available 'is caused by the release of chemical energy of combustion, causing force, causing acceleration of the fired bullet's matter, resulting in a closing velocity being established between the fired bullet and the target'."

Jagter,

You have given a very good explanation and Skyler is bringing back the basics of how we should have understood it in the first place. Dammit, scientists are almost as bad as economists ... only some.

"KE is misrepresented as that magical form of energy that a fired bullet carries with it to the target. If the target is a game animal then this 'kinetic energy' is supposed to be the cause of all the wounding and destruction that are later seen and witnessed on and within the successfully hunted animal."

What should ammo manufactures publish on the box instead ... any ideas?



Chris

All the math makes sense... but you have to use it ALL to get the right answer. The "ALL" part also includes game type, age, health, etc, environment, shooter ability and confidence, unpredictable, chaotical influences, blah, blah, blah. And in the end, if a caveman could take down a mammoth with spears and rocks, most modern firearms could too.
One question remains... If a 243 blows a prairie dog in half is that too much energy, or is it just fun?

where does the fact that too high an impact velocity tends to cause bullets to deform, and "skid" instead of penetrating straight one thru the animal com into play?

Rich

/

Alf,
As you probably know I shoot springbuck and blesbuck with a 40gr HV bullet. The last five or so seasons I have been using the 22x64 (1:14" twist) with a load that gives reasonable case life (4700fps give or take). I have only recovered one bullet (from a blesbuck shot at about 120m) and it weighs 32.4gr. I built a 22x64 with a tighter twist (1:8") for a friend and he uses the 60gr HV. He has also recovered only one bullet. He hit a zebra with a head shot at 30m and the bullet broke down to 30gr. Both of us have applied the two rifles at longer ranges to 450m and it always shoots through. A customer in Gauteng has used the 40gr HV on black wildebeest with great success where he experienced good penetration at longer ranges.

This is ample support for the fact that higher speeds produce less penetration and greater destruction of the bullet and target. It also highlights the fact that some bullet construction types have wider speed application ranges than others. The advantage this brings is that, providing that performance is good at the higher speeds of close range, it gets better as the shots become longer.

The toughest test of a bullet is indeed close range impacts. If it performs there, it will perform better further, until speed drops off to the point where it is so low that expansion stops. The higher the speed at which the bullet still performs well, the wider the application range of the caliber will be.

quote:

Count me out of that one, I do not believe in higher velocity being better for anything other than a flatter trajectory, and seeing that the ranges at which we hunt DG does not need a very flat trajectory, 2400 is more than needed. Rather use a heavier bullet if your cartridge has the capability.

Karl,

Quite so, the high velocity aspect really becomes more important when combined with high BC bullets for long-range shooting for better wind deflection and flatter trajectories. The KE formula, the traditional measure, assigns an unduely importance to "velocity" as it gets squared.

Energy as a yardstick is failing us to describe the work a bullet can do, as we observe the results in the field. Energy is given to us in foot-pounds. What does it mean ... one foot-pound is the amount of energy required to lift one pound one foot high, against the force of gravity. In the KE formula we have to divide by the gravity constant. Also we have to multiply the answer by .5 or divide by 2. That could mean that we have to half the mass of the bullet, before multiplying by the velocity squared, and then divide the whole lot by the gravity constant, which is not the same everywhere on the planet. Or if we do not half the mass, then we could say we multiply by one and a half time the velocity. Weird, at best. When applied to the shooting of bullets to access the force of impact or penetration ability, in the form of a single number, we are led astray. KE as a measure of a bullets ability to do work should be positively rejected.

Whereas we shoot at targets HORIZONTALLY, it now seems there is a VERTICAL element/constant brought into play. Little wonder that the KE formula was the subject of debate and controversy for the last century. John Pondoro Taylor was astute enough to observe that it does not work in field, hence his different approach to put more emphasis on MOMENTUM that does not bring into play a gravity constant nor to double the importance of velocity to skew the results. When an object (bullet) is in motion the force is better determined by simply looking at mass and velocity. And even that is not the full answer as to how the bullet will behave, as we need to bring it in relation with the material, shape and construction of the bullet. (e.g. rubber bullet vs frangible lead-core bullet vs non-deforming solid bullet, etc.)

That is why it is better to focus on terminal momentum, the striking velocity multiplied by retained mass of the bullet, to give us an idea of what is happening on impact at the target. If the shot is over 200 yards, let us say, and it is a Soft bullet, the velocity has decreased and the bullet may lose say between 5% and 65% of its original weight depending on it threshold strength. That is why field experience needs to brought into play.

Chris

OK: Points well made across the board, but when all is said & done, if I had to use a piece of data for a cartridge's power...to be able to select just one yardstick for some indication...I'd go with Taylor's knock out formula...after all he had a wealth of practical experience, and I would respect his opinion over those who don't have John Taylor's experience. My opinion.
Tom

All methods of 'power' comparison are subjective, and often bear little resemblance to actual performance on game.

Still, you have to go by something when comparing cartridges, and although "shock" cannot be quantified, I'd lean towards TKO, too, unless we're discussing Weatherby rounds.

George

Awww, come on, George, you can't mean ME isnt' a fair tool to compare a 223bullet at 6500fps to a .510 bullet at 2400fp!!!

or, to state it another way.. most of those tools are very valid, if you are comparing the same, or close to the same, bore diameter and/or bullet constructions... but comparing a super hot .338 load to a mild .458 is like comparing apples to blue.

jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by analog_peninsula:
Well ...
We all agree bigger is better, until it's too big.
We all agree that faster is better, until it's too fast.
We all believe in accurate shot placement.
We all believe in good bullet quality.

And we all agree that getting your head knocked off your shoulders every time you pull the trigger isn't fun.

Which pretty much explains why we can't agree on anything.

this is the "acceptable recoil" calculus

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Awww, come on, George, you can't mean ME isnt' a fair tool to compare a 223bullet at 6500fps to a .510 bullet at 2400fp!!!

Or a .204 Ruger to a .44 magnum.

George

Taylor shot more DG than all of us combined, in all of our lifetimes combined, will ever shoot or in a long and good night's sleep will ever dream of shooting.

And he shot them with more rifles, in more calibers, than all of us theoreticians and applied technicians will ever shoot, own, or use on DG, besides.

Put another way, Pondoro knew whereof he spoke.

So, and however, and notwithstanding anything set forth or implied herein to the contrary, are his TKOs absolute? No. There are no absolutes.

But Taylor's TKOs are a pretty good indicator of what works poorly, what works well, what works better and what will work the best.

And here mrlexma hit the nail on its head!

Taylor never said he was a mathematic, nor that it was entierly correct. It is most off in the top and bottom of the list, where they seem to take off, but the sequence was correct,and it showed what his field experience learned him. And, it was all with round nosed FMJ's at the time.

Plenty of matemathics can tell you today he was wrong - but it was good enough! An indicator less experienced men could learn from.

quote:

Count me out of that one, I do not believe in higher velocity being better for anything other than a flatter trajectory, and seeing that the ranges at which we hunt DG does not need a very flat trajectory, 2400 is more than needed. Rather use a heavier bullet if your cartridge has the capability

We sing off the same hymn-sheet. My load is 286 grainer Rhino bullets at 2,220 fps, achieved with 56 gr S355 (new Somchem powder).

I have a friend that reminds me that his ass was wiped with powder when he was a baby, we should rather refer to propellant. Ok, old habits die hard.

Chris