Bullet Energy

[mcb]

KE, ME, all related, but inadequate by themselves as models of lethality. I agree with your analysis, but if you notice, marksmanship skills, which lead to better shot placement, are not promoted in the press. Instead what is published promotes the concept that expensive equipment compensates for a fundamental lack of marksmanship skills. Shooting is a skill based activity, not some deterministic game where the end point is based on what you spend.

I agree Slamfire I don't think they will ever have a nice succinct model for lethality. We have good models for internal, external and terminal ballistics (on inanimate objects). But with a living target there are simply too many variables, many of which defy modelling, to ever create a reliable predictive model of lethality. Too many of those variables you would need to know to create an accurate model are unknowns right up till the moment the gun fires.

As for marksmanship skills I think that depend on what "press" your reading. I have read lots of good articles over the years about shooting techniques, reloading techniques, and action/bedding techniques that are all suppose to increase you and/or your firearms accuracy potential. So that depends a lot on what press your reading. That said, the advertisements on the other hand (and many publications are turning into thinly veiled advertisement sold as articles) are all about selling you on the latest and greatest new gun/cartridges that will give you "magical accuracy" with no practice etc etc. Its hard to sell marksmanship so you see few advertisements for it but there are classes if you look for them.

 

[MCgunner]

Wow, a Weatherby Mk 5 for $230? Wonder what a time machine costs.

 

[d2wing]

Slamfire Fackler is a liar and a quack. He was a coroner that made up reports to discredit the M-16. Later he and his fellow cadre passed him off as an expert with no training or experience in ballistics at all.

 

[Tradmark]

Said no deer hunter ever

You do if you wanna get a consistent wound channel comparison thru the lungs of a variety of rounds to compare.

 

[d2wing]

Craig, you crack me up, you make up arguments with ghost people who never said anything you claim they say. What a hoot. Take better care of yourself, seriously.

 

[CraigC]

Craig, you crack me up, you make up arguments with ghost people who never said anything you claim they say. What a hoot. Take better care of yourself, seriously.

So you basically have no argument whatsoever, thanks for playing.

 

[Dibbs]

I’ve had the misfortune of spending some time with cardiologists and ran through this theory in depth, they (along with my own training as pre-med in college, engineering was a back-up) confirm this is wholly lore. The pressure generated by the impact would collapse the heart valves whether the heart is “on the upstroke” or not, expand the arteries, and create the same pressure within the system regardless of the beat timing of the heart. It’s pseudoscience.

Sometimes the animal drops, like a sack of potatoes, for no good reason, on a shot that was less than
optimal. Sometimes an animal shot thru the heart becomes a marathon runner. Case in point, I hit
deer #1 in the middle of the gut, with a .44 carbine. Keeled right over. Twitched, and lay still. With deer #2 it was a heartshot with a 180 grain 30.06, this buck cranked out over 350 yards before
he keeled over. What would your cardiologist say to that, was it deer #1's sleepy time?

Slamfire, you'll find that a lot of the same folks who take the boat out, and sometimes
come back with few or no fish, also admit to occasionally missing the optimal shot placement.
Yes, shot placement is important, but Federal Ammo saying so on the box provides us
with ZERO ballistic data on the bullets inside the box, which we are comparing to
Remington, Speer, and Hornady ammo boxes. Granted, we all are aware of how
important accuracy is, I doubt many of us are buying ammo thinking "Gee, I better
get ammo that costs twice as much, because I'm such a crappy shot."

 

[Odd Job]

There's too much friction in this thread. Folks need to dial it down a bit.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

.More than 150 years ago, a big game, and dangerous game hunter, wrote about what projectiles do. Now he was using lead, no metal jackets, and he was using black powder, so much lower velocities and he wasn't getting any additional effects that folks with modern cartridges get. BUT what he observed does equate to what a lot of folks are doing today. Perhaps without folks today realizing that these observations still apply.

"Ample penetration must also be secured; …, As a rule, a rifle should be able to drive its ball through and through the animal fired at. [deer type big game]"


“It is evident that, of two wounds of equal depth, that which has the larger area [diameter] will have the most effect on the internal economy [cardio and nervous systems] of the animal. It will rupture more blood-vessels and nerves in proportion as it is larger [in diameter] than the other, and so produce more sudden blood-letting, and shock to the [animal’s] system. It may, moreover, include a bone or vital organ, such as a heart or brain, in its path, …., Penetration, therefore, being equal, or sufficient, in both cases, that projectile which has the largest striking surface [diameter] is the best for our purpose [a quick, human harvest]"
John Forsyth The Sporting Rifle and Its Projectiles (1867)

For me, using a patched, round ball for deer, this directly applies. The soft lead deforms, and I get an even bigger wound than the .530 diameter that arrives on impact.

But for folks with the modern cartridges, this also applies. Forsyth writes, that the only thing that you can rely upon is the wound delivered by what the bullet actually contacts as it travels within the game animal. We know, and in fact it's often illegal, to hunt with FMJ rounds vs. big game since those type of bullets tend to zip through the animal, no? What we want is a bullet that at distance will deform..., will make it's forward portion larger, and thus cause much more damage.., and go as deep as possible. Companies do research, advertise a lot, on how well their bullets do that very thing. I believe that Hornady has even a few bullets that are meant to deform at lower velocities for those older cartridges, such as .30-30, .300 Savage, and .35 Remington?

So in summation, what we need to know is...does the bullet have a good chance to pass completely through the animal when broadside, and will it deform to give the largest possible wound ?

LD

 

[buck460XVR]

There's too much friction in this thread. Folks need to dial it down a bit.

I agree. This subject has been hashed over since the beginning of gun forum time, and yet, while we have definitive opinions, we have yet to reach a definitive conclusion. Has always amazed me how those that insist that ME is insignificant, are also those that seem to feel the need to post the MV and bullet weight of their favorite hunting load(which basically gives us......you guessed it...... ME). ME is just a very rough indicator of the destructive potential of a projectile, and like caliber, MV, bullet weight and bullet construction, should never be the sole piece of information used to decide what works the best for each of us. Size of game, distance to game, along with woodsmanship and marksmanship skills also play an important role.

 

[CraigC]

I agree. This subject has been hashed over since the beginning of gun forum time, and yet, while we have definitive opinions, we have yet to reach a definitive conclusion. Has always amazed me how those that insist that ME is insignificant, are also those that seem to feel the need to post the MV and bullet weight of their favorite hunting load(which basically gives us......you guessed it...... ME). ME is just a very rough indicator of the destructive potential of a projectile, and like caliber, MV, bullet weight and bullet construction, should never be the sole piece of information used to decide what works the best for each of us. Size of game, distance to game, along with woodsmanship and marksmanship skills also play an important role.

The fact that velocity and bullet weight are important does not lend any credibility at all to the use of kinetic energy as a proper metric. If anything, the examples given illustrate how flawed the energy formula is, as it squares velocity, which greatly exaggerates its importance and completely ignores critical factors such as diameter and construction. Again, we can determine what cartridges/bullets/loads are appropriate for what game without even considering energy.

Woodsmanship and marksmanship have nothing to do with terminal ballistics.

 

[rbernie]

When I was younger, the gun rags of the era were full of sage advice which insisted that 800ft/lbs of energy was required to humanely hunt Bambi or equivalent. I read now on the internet that 1000ft/lbs of energy is the minimum requirement.

I never understood how a deer knew how much energy was generated, and thus either decided to die or not. I certainly do not understand how the deer have figured this out to the point where they are now more energy resistant than in times past.

 

[MCgunner]

There's too much friction in this thread. Folks need to dial it down a bit.

It always is that way on this subject, be it about hunting rifles or handguns for self defense. The handgunner will say, "Rifles have more energy. They do not act like handguns." Then, you read a hunting argument on this subject and a 155 howitzer can't kill unless it hits the CNS or heart. No opinions are EVER changed by these "discussions" so I've decided not to participate.

Anyway, I think I'd close this thread. JMHO

 

[cheygriz]

Why don't we just agree that you should use whatever works for you and I will use whatever works for me???

This bickering is pointless. I know from personal experience in the field what will work for me. If my experience doesn't "fit" your theories, ...well, so be it. I will still use what I know works.

And I couldn't care less what you use, as long as it kills cleanly and humanely.

 

[CraigC]

I don't see this thread as bickering but a rigorous exchange of ideas, opinions, experiences and perspectives. We don't have to all agree for it to be productive. Nor does anyone have to change the mind of anyone participating. These threads serve for more than that. Those reading this now and for years to come may have enough information to make up their minds for themselves.

 

[cheygriz]

Craig, I understand what you're saying.

My point was simply that in an area where there are so many unmeasurable variables that a team of rocket scientists couldn't possibly produce definitive proof, rehashing the same ideas over and over is rather pointless.

 

[d2wing]

I probably should not post, but I will say that I used an M2 .50 BMG in combat. No way will I ever consider a .54 Cal. lead ball backed by 100 gr of black powder it's equal as craig and slamfire maintain. Yup they all work but I will stick to modern high velocity cartridges. Bye.

 

[CraigC]

My point was simply that in an area where there are so many unmeasurable variables that a team of rocket scientists couldn't possibly produce definitive proof, rehashing the same ideas over and over is rather pointless.

That's why we don't have a proper gauge, because it's virtually impossible for a formula to take every variable into account.

I probably should not post, but I will say that I used an M2 .50 BMG in combat. No way will I ever consider a .54 Cal. lead ball backed by 100 gr of black powder it's equal as craig and slamfire maintain. Yup they all work but I will stick to modern high velocity cartridges. Bye.

Wow, I don't know how you come up with that. Talk about emotional and irrational.

 

[mcb]

I sort of enjoy these threads, assuming it does not turn personal but sticks to the science I love the discussion of theories and even better when we can share some good data/evidence.

One other thing to consider is that kinetic energy at impact though does not create a strong correlation to lethality (in the absence of other information) there is a pretty good evidence that kinetic energy and penetration have a fairly strong relationship (if complicated relationship in the targets we like to shoot). Given how critical penetration is to lethality, kinetic energy become important as a secondarily quality of the bullet.

I have stated this before in similar threads and like it so will repeat it here. In a simple target with a simple non-expanding projectile the penetration is directly proportional to the kinetic energy at impact. This was one of the fundamental experiments in physics done is the early 18th century that help establish what the correlation between kinetic energy and work was. Willem Jacob 's Gravesande did experiments where he dropped brass balls into soft clay and showed that a ball going twice as fast penetrated four time more clay supporting the working theory that kinetic energy was proportional to m*v^2 (0.5*m*v^2 to be exact and determined later). Another great example is the thickness of homogeneous armor an inert AP projectiles (IE hardened steel or tungsten core as opposed to explosively formed penetrator etc) can penetrate is linearly proportional to the energy the projectile has at the impact with the armor. Double the kinetic energy at impact and double the thickness of armor the projectile can penetrate. This hold across a fair range of projectile diameter and armor thickness ratios and monolithic armor types assuming the impact stressed do not exceed the projectile's strength

Now an expanding bullet typically used by hunters going into the highly variable and viscous target like a tasty animal with hide, muscle, bone, internal organs etc that relationship is no longer as simple as brass-balls in clay or AP against armor but the assumption that for a given bullet more energy at impact usually increases penetration is not a bad assumption. You see this in ballistic gel tests that test a given bullet at difference impact velocities. That said there are a couple notable exceptions we need to be aware of. Too much energy can cause a bullet to structurally fail greatly reducing penetration. Other times a bullet exhibits greater penetration for lower energy impacts because the bullet fails to expand and thus its sectional density does not decrease and it penetrates more than a bit more impact kinetic energy would have resulted in if the bullet had expanded. Yes bullet/critter interactions are, unlike the simple brass-ball/clay or AP/armor interactions, not nearly so linear, but for a given bullet the assumption that more kinetic energy at impact will produce more penetration, assuming you are truly within the bullets designed functional envelop, is a pretty soundly supported idea.

 

[MCgunner]

The one thing I will say definitively....a .38 special ain't enough for a mature boar hog. How do I know this? I was on the way home one day and there was a pig in the pasture down from the house just goin' to town tearing up dirt like a front loader. So, I stopped and showed the wife. I decided to try to do something about it, rolled the window down (yeah, I don't believe in electric windows :) and pulled the .38 I was carrying out of my pocket, took careful aim, and fired. I've practiced a lot at long range with this handgun and am pretty sure I hit that pig's shoulder from 50 yards, but he stumbled, then took off like a rocket for the woods and he was gone.

I mean, think about it. That .38 starts out of that two inch barrel with 275 ft lbs. Yeah, THAT is +P. It's a 158 JHP. at 50 yards I'm sure, if I ran the numbers, it'd be below 200 ft lbs. That's .22LR from a rifle territory. It does have more momentum, but I don't give that bullet much chance of making it through the shoulder of a large hog like that. I figure there's a pig with a hole in his hide limping around the woods pretty miffed. I don't like carrying a firearm in the truck, just too easy to get stolen. BUT, I carried my folding stock SKS 16" paratrooper for a while. Of course, I might go a couple of years before I see another pig like this on the way in on our private road. Maybe I'll have my .357 on me or my .45 next time. But, I won't be pig hunting any time soon with a .38 snubby.

 

[Laphroaig]

a .38 special ain't enough for a mature boar hog

It would be if you shot him in the head, ala Karamojo Bell.

 

[cheygriz]

I wouldn't go pig hunting with a .45 either.

 

[MCgunner]

It would be if you shot him in the head, ala Karamojo Bell.

I've actually done that to pigs in the trap. But, at 50 yards? I brag that I hit his shoulder.

 

[Laphroaig]

No Bob Munden, huh? For the rest of us, hitting anything at 50 yds. with a snubbie is good shooting.

 

[MaxP]

I wouldn't go pig hunting with a .45 either.

I would. I've killed a truckload of wild hogs with all manner of firearm and they're not bulletproof. As long as you are using a good bullet in that .45...