Here are tables which provide a quick comparison of kinetic energy (muzzle energy), momentum and Taylor Knockout Value for a variety of cartridges for bolt action rifles:

http://www.empirerifles.com/Ballistic%20Rank.htm

500,

I see KE(Newton's Theory) and Momentum, but I don't see Taylor? I think Taylor-KO may change the ranking again because it takes into consideration the bore diameter. Also, I think if you did the math for KE using Einstein's Theory, you would get different KE numbers than Newton's.

Gary

Gary,

The Taylor table is on the right side of the screen. Perhaps your screen view cuts it off. Try panning right to see if you can view it.

Taylor changes the ranking quite a bit, and bore size seems to dominate in the TKO rankings.

Got it, thanks!!!!

I don't see the **/** listed. Was that an oversight?

quote:

Originally posted by Art S.:
I don't see the **/** listed. Was that an oversight?

I'd say Taylor's method is the most relatively accurate gauge of a cartridge's performance on game. Energy is nearly meaningless, it's caliber and bullet weight that does the work and kills game.

Nice. Thanks for passing this on.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Here are tables which provide a quick comparison of kinetic energy (muzzle energy), momentum and Taylor Knockout Value for a variety of cartridges for bolt action rifles:

http://www.empirerifles.com/Ballistic%20Rank.htm

From where did Taylor come up with the 7000 constant in the divisor?

7000 grains per pound.

Dan

Taylors chart bucks the system of speed, weight,and energy. Not based on shooting or real ballistics it is a Joke. IMHO.

Something fishy with these tables! Or is it possible as it is?

Compare the following two calibres only over all three tables -

K/E Rank -

264 Win mag 160gr ranking 95

7 mm Rem Mag 160gr ranking 77.

Mom. Rank -

264 Win Mag 140gr ranking 92
Different bullet weights given here.
7mm Rem Mag 160gr ranking 76

Taylor K/O Rank -

264 Win Mag 160gr ranking 92
Again different bullet weights, but ..........
7mm Rem Mag 175gr ranking 71

Shouldn't the 7mm Rem Mag outrank the 264 Win Mag on K/E and Taylor K/O ranking with the same bullet weight and more so with a higher bullet weight (175gr.)?

What would it really be on Mom. Rank if same bullet weights were used for these two calibres?

Is energy nearly meaningless? How come?

Taylor says in his book "African Rifles and Cartridges" that what he calls "Knock out value" is to "permit an immediate comparison of any two rifles from the point of view of the actual punch delivered by the bullet on heavy massive boned animals which are almost invariably shot at close quarters."

He goes on to say "In the case of soft skinned non-dangerous game generally shot at medium and long range theoretical maximum energy may possibly prove a more relaible guide, provided a suitable weight of bullet is chosen for the weight of the animal..."

What this means to me is that the Taylor KO calulations only apply to crushing skulls or heavy bones and that for tearing up flesh in vital areas he refers to kinetic energy applied in the best manner.

"John Taylor was the last professional ivory hunter in East Africa; he was also a legendary figure in his own time. He probably knew more about ammunition and rifles for African game than any other hunter, and he cites his own experiences in the wilds to defend his arguments about which rifle is the best to use on big game. He covers rifles and calibers for elephant, rhino, hippo, buffalo, and lion. Also covered: safeties; single vs double trigger; double rifles; ballistics tables; sights; the .375 H&H; the 'all-round' rifle; small-, medium-, and large-bore rifles; and much more. Good stories are included as well as the best advice available."

.

Gentlemen,

Who's to say which method is right and which is wrong? All of it is theory and all has good and bad points.

The ammo/gun industry made a decision to adopt Newton's Theory to calculate KE. This is the mainstream standard. Is it correct? Is Einstein wrong? He also has a theory to calculate KE and you will get different results depending on which theory used. As it stands, most use Einstein when speeds involved are greater than light. Newton is used when speeds are less than light. Newton makes for great marketing to sell the latest wiz-bang high speed cartridge or lightweight carbon arrow, because it gives twice the value to speed as does to weight in the math.

Momentum does not give speed twice the value of weight in the math. Many who were using larger, heavier and slower projectiles found that the math used in Newton's Theory did not match the results observed in the field. Many determined that Momentum was more accurate to predict field result in this situation.

Taylor is Momentum, but since he was using non-expanding bullets, Taylor believed that caliber diamenter should be a factor in the math. Many believe that Taylor is the most reliable method to predict big bore performance on dangerous game.

Sam Fadala published a paper on work he did comparing the above three mathmatical theories to actual results on big bore calibers, both expanding and non-expanding. He utilized ballisticians and standard lab models as well as data collected on actual kills on dangerous game. What he concluded was that Taylor-KO was more accurate in predicting actual performance in big bore cartridges regardless the projectile being expanding or non-expanding. Newton's KE was the least reliable method.

I think all three theories have their place and have good and bad points. As to me personally, I've observed terminal performance from quite a few 350RMs/35Whelens, 9.3x62s, etc. that were repeatedly devastating way beyond their Newton KE numbers but were closer to Momentum or Taylor values. So anytime I use math to measure a cartridge to be used on anything large and dangerous, I prefer not to use KE.

Gary

Then there is the "BS Index" or Bwana Saeed Index, in honor of our host. This is the Taylor K.O. value multiplied by the Sectional Density (SD) of the subject bullet, and a constant of 12 thrown in to correct the units of feet and inches which Taylor never bothered to do, since he simply multiplies fps and caliber in inches, though he did do the pounds to grains correction with a 7000 constant. Eureka! The .375 H&H BSI value is exactly 1.00, so this is indexed to 100% for comparison to all other loads. Note one typo in the table: .404 Jeffery bullet should be .423 not .421. Alas Nickudu and I did not know much about the .404 Jeffery when we compiled this table, but now we do:

BS Index

The Empire Rifle tables linked by 500grains would be much more interesting if they listed the actual values for the momentum and kinetic energy rather than the HOKEY RANK ORDERING!!!

Since it's been mentioned a couple of times, I think we should relieve everbody's concern over KE vs the Einstien method. Since a velocity of 2000 fps is roughly 2/1,000,000 of the speed of light, it is safe to assume we can ignore relativistic effects. There isn't room on the computer screen to display enough decimal points to show the difference between relativistic and Newtonian energies at these levels. We can safely assume they are "essentially" identical at normal muzzle velocities. However, in case you do generate loads of a level where they do come into play, please note that they become significant well below the speed of light, around 0.9 Vl. Actually, I don't believe Einstien ever formalized a system which encompassed the region above the speed of light. After the development of quantum theory, subsequent to his special and general relativity, he spent the rest of his life trying to develop a unified field theory to meld quantum and electromagnetic theory, but never succeeded. That work is being carried on by the superstring workers now.

Alf:

In one of your other posts you said: (If one could read this other posting below together with your post here in reply to my questions, I would think!)

quote:

I for one have a number of issues to take up in this debate.

1. SD: As an entity it exists and it determines how much velocity ( Vt = Threshold velocity ) is needed to overcome resistance to penetration in Soft solids ( not fluids) If the SD is high Vt comes down, if SD is low Vt needs to go up.

That makes perfectly sense to me and I would agree with that.

quote:

The relationship between SD and Vt in penetration is numerically such that SD carries more numerical credence than Vt. Ie. the two do not stand numerically equall but in opposition to each other.

Now I start wondering! In my mind and field experience of lately velocity definitely should get more credit in all this. SD is there and that's it, BUT ..... (See bold portion in your point 2 below i.e. low SD high Velocity as in point 1 above.)

quote:

2. There is a very definite velocity window where every projectile needs to be shot at to give best performance, it even applies to solid monometal bullets. The reason lies with yield strength of the projectile material and construction. When the forces of resistance to penetration becomes to big and it exceeds the yield strength of the projectile material the projectile deforms and or fragments, this in turn causes a number of physical things that affect penetration such as:

a) The projectile mushrooms: If we assume symmetrical increase in diameter: The SD now becomes less and because you need more Vt to sustain penetration with lower SD, this cannot be added or increased and thus penetration drops off rapidly.

Exactly what my argument was in another thread ( expansion to a 7.1 times larger diameter as was pointed out by BigRx eventually), yet I was labelled being all sorts of things by those who didn't want to admit what you state as a fact in point 2(a) above. Never mind, let's go on and learn something and leave the stubborn minded, friends or not, behind us in their own created, confusing maze!

quote:

b) the projectile fragments: Again SD becomes less and not only that, projectiles may become unstable due to asymmetrical loss of shape.

This is very, very important and brings me back to my questions and your reply in this thread.

quote:

If we add the dimension of wounding capacity to this unfortunately the picture becomes very complex, and actually not so. But we can take it from there.

Só, we now through out all the "knock-out" values as they are not based on the principles of terminal ballistics science and we are left with the following:

quote:

There are two components to the equation.

The first is Projectile factors such as mass, velocity, caliber and contruction and then secondly the target factor (Living tissue ) as well as the physiological response of tissue to the insult.
Target factors in living tissue are very complex and though we know a great deal about the elastic properties of various types of tissues we have no accurate way of putting it to the math when it comes to the time it takes for an organism to become incpacitated of to die.

The second leg of the equation then is the most difficult or even impossible to predict and model to a reproducable formula.

Based on the above we also have no control and limited knowledge re the target factor (Living tissue) and that can also be put aside for the moment.

Now we are left with Projectile factors such as mass, velocity, caliber and contruction.

Both the 264 Win Mag and the 7 mm Rem Mag can cause devastating damage to meat if poorly constructed bullets like core bonded types are used. So much so that most SA biltong hunters will tell you that a 264 Win Mag is a "mincer". (With well constructed bullets, it's a "winner"!)
To a lesser extent that also applies to the 7mm Rem Mag and I have personally experienced that on game as big as a Kudu cow where I basically had to discard 90% of the shoulder on the exit side.

Given these two calibres as a fixed because of my choice, we are now left with bullet mass and velocity.
As a result of my negative experiences with "heavy-for-calibre" core bonded bullets, I now use expanding monometal bullets namely GS Custom HV's with far more acceptable results and basically no meat damage when compared to the other bullet types.
Because these bullets are much lighter, perfectly constructed and lower in SD, velocity is the factor that really makes the difference here.

Long story, but now I'm back to my questions:

Is energy nearly meaningless? How come?

And also, shouldn't the 7 mm Rem Mag outperform the 264 Win Mag?

When looking at a typical load for a GS Custom HV bullet, I see the following:

264 Win Mag 59 - 65gr of gun powder depending on the type of powder used and

7mm Rem Mag 64 - 70gr of gun powder also depending on type used.

The gun powder is certainly the source of the energy needed here to propell the bullet. (In Afrikaans: dryfmiddel.)

If one looks at that fact then I still maintain that the 7mm should outperform the 264 on actual punch delivered (Afr.: slaankrag) onto the target.
The 264, however, due to the lower bullet weight should be the winner as far as effective distance goes.

Can any body please confirm this or correct me where I am wrong seeing that these tables are based on a historically flaw based science?

quote:

Originally posted by Jagter:
Can any body please confirm this or correct me where I am wrong seeing that these tables are based on a historically flaw based science?

I would take all of the different mathematical theories and laboratory models with a grain of salt. The best predictor you can use to judge the potential performance of a firearm, cartridge, bullet, etc. is to follow a proven track record from field experience. If it works, then it works. If it is a failure, then it doesn't matter if you can find a theory or model to say it is good; it is a failure!

If the weatherman uses the latest computer model to predict that you will have sunny skies in three days, but you have rain instead; no matter how you try to justify the math, it is raining!

Gary

quote:

I would take all of the different mathematical theories and laboratory models with a grain of salt. The best predictor you can use to judge the potential performance of a firearm, cartridge, bullet, etc. is to follow a proven track record from field experience. If it works, then it works. If it is a failure, then it doesn't matter if you can find a theory or model to say it is good; it is a failure!

As I type this there are 178 members on this forum. Now Taylor shot 5000 elephants alone and ranked the cartridges! Taking into consideration that the bullets on each of the cartridges could have changed then one must average what bullets were used then and consider his formula an outline.

For one person here to take Taylor as being wrong is just not understanding. If you shoot 5000 elephants and see a pattern I say that you can write a formula.

Now I don't shoot big game animals in the head so Taylors advice does not apply to me but I do appreciate that he knew what he was talking about. Taylor is hard to read however and it seems that the formula was taken entirely out of context to mean lung shots on soft skinned game with 270's and it never was at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_Helm:

quote:

Originally posted by Art S.:
I don't see the **/** listed. Was that an oversight?

you beat me to it

controlling the information....nice

These tables are simply means by which to compare one caliber to another. I know whats best without any tables, any shooter should..but Taylor isn't off base in his tables, I pretty well agree with him for the most part...His ducks are pretty well stacked up by comparison I think.

.

Alf, thanks for your explanation re Energy and where it fits in.

Now that we know energy is in no way "nearly meaningless" we can continue with the rest.

quote:

The projectile decellerates and comes to a stop.

It therefore transferred all of it's energy to the target.

This transfer also includes a transfer of momentum.

Obviously where a bullet exits the target some of it's energy/momentum is not transferred to the target - retained to travel on after passing through the target.

I do understand now why the 264 Win Mag is called a "mincer" by hunters using wrongly constructed ammunition in this and other high velocity potential calibres.
The same applies to the 7mm Rem Mag.
That can be overcome by using well constructed bullets like GS Custom HV's.

One can now say that it is almost a sin not to use modern, well constructed bullets in any rifle with high velocity projectile launching capabilities!

This last part of your post is very important.

quote:

So in effect high or ultra velocity projectiles kill in two ways.

Direct truama due to the physical contact of the projectile with tissue and
secondly due to the reaction of the tissue (drag) to the projectile speeding through the target in the form of a temporaray cavity.

But important:
Temporary cavitation effect is tissue type (visco elastic property) dependent.

This is where hunting experience and more specifically so, good shot placement skills comes into the overall picture.
Vital organs like brain, lungs, liver fall directly in this category. The heart, although being a more muscular organ, can be added on here simply because it is a blood pump and when damaged it is causing the death of the animal.

Does anyone have a close up picture of the Empire's Mauser action? How would you compare this action with other custom Mauser actions like Granite Mountain, "vector", etc.? Thanks in advance for your reply!

quote:

You asked where does energy fit into the wound capacity picture ?

The short answer lies with kinetic energy causing temporary cavitation.

Alf,

Thank you for the explaination of energy in wounding however I would like to submit a clarification of the importance of the temporary cavity in hunting.

"All tissue is elastic and will rebound, up to a point, from the stretch caused by the hydrodynamic force of the bullet's passage (this is termed a "temporary cavity"). Tissue has varying elasticity and some tissues will be damaged by hydrodynamic pressure which causes only temporary cavitation in other surrounding tissues. In general, however, temporary cavitation is relatively insignificant for the hunter, although it is often very useful in combat situations. Humans are not as psychologically predisposed to struggle to survive as wild animals, and will often collapse or surrender when struck by a bullet which causes violent temporary cavitation, even if they are not physically incapacitated (especially if the bullet passes close by the spine). Game animals will generally recover and run (or charge) within a second or so; aggressors hyped on drugs or anaesthetized by endorphins as a result of a previous injury will behave in the same way"

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/mechanics.html#cavitation

.

thanks for the info grains, great chart

i think i will make my own index called the "new boom stick index" or (no b.s. index for slang) here is how it goes...multiply your s.d. by 10 by your bullet dia. times ten divided by your 5 shot group at 100 yards. if you can put all of your 30-06 in 2" groups you will do better than 500 jeff with 10" groups. everyone will have their own custom index so your average 30-06 with a 3sd 2" groups scores you about a 4.5. a 270 will score about a 3.5 with 2" groups and a 45-70 scores around a six, a big .50 cal with a 4sd and 2" groups gives you a score of 10. and a 375 with a good 3.5 sd bullet with 1" groups will get you over 13. what do you think? how do you score? do some computations and get back to me.

quote:

How can it be of no consequence for the hunter?

Harald does not say no consequence but relatively little.

If a bullet hits flesh and creates a temporary cavity what damage has it done? It may hurt and the animal may fall from the blow thats true but if there is no bleeding then it's just football.

.

Alf,

Perhaps the definition of temporary cavity has not been defined. We may agree if that had been done.

I will stand over here with Harald on this till then.

.

quote:

The temporary wound cavity is defined as that area of tissue around the true wound cavity where tissue is displaced by volume change due to the passage of the penetrating projectile.

If we assume tissue of predominatly visco -elastic properties the tissue will be stretched.

The ability of the tissue type to bear the shear forces of this volume displacement will determine what damage that temporary cavitation will do.

Alf,

And I took the definition as the above abreviated version.

I was thinking that since most hits in what we call vital areas are elastic and or do not respond to hyraulic pressure that would cover my preparation for the right bullet and velocity.

Not much aiming gets done at livers and intestines on purpose anyway. The blanket that keeps me warm on that unfortunate but possible bad hit is to use as much gun as I can which I think does matter.

In fact in your orginal post you said:

"The short answer lies with kinetic energy causing temporary cavitation.

Vs: you shoot a watermelon with a 22 long rifle and you simply punch a little hole through it vs you shooting it with a 223 and the whole watermelon explodes.

In primary water like tissue ( brain /liver ) or the watermelon, temporary cavitation phenomena are devastating.

In primary viscous tissue such as muscle the temporary cavitation is tolerated by the elastic properties of the tissue and effect is small."

I still stand over here with Harald. If I aimed at the brain, liver or stomach then........