As most of us know. The energy of a bullet in flight is an equation of velocity and mass.
The more energy the bullet has, the harder it is to stop and in theory will do more damage to its intended target.
Thus a 230 grain bullet traveling slower then a 115 grain bullet can have more energy and thus in theory create more damage.
However, I ask, wouldn’t the cross section diameter otherwise known as caliber of the bullet also have an impact on damage on a target.
Example being two 185 grain bullets traveling at the same speed, with one bullet being 9mm and the other being 45 caliber. Wouldn’t the 45 caliber do more damage due to its cross sectional diameter being larger? Yes the 45 caliber bullet would be shorter and the 9mm longer, but the 45 caliber should produce a larger hole? Correct? (Yes, 185 grain 9mm bullets are rare, to non-existent, but this is just an example for discussion on damage theory)
Thus the reason we have hollow points and other various types of bullets that use expansion techniques to increase their cross sectional diameter either in flight, or upon impact with the target.
Thus if we were to invent/discover a damage equation, it would have to include not just the bullets weight and speed, but it’s cross sectional diameter? Correct?
Does a damage equation even exist?
Example again which would cause more damage, (assume FMJ-RN) a 9mm bullet with energy of 300 foot/lbs or a 45 caliber bullet with 250 foot/lbs? Yes the 9mm has more energy, but it’s also a physically smaller bullet then a 45 caliber bullet. How many foot/lb difference of energy would be needed to make the smaller 9mm create more damage? (Yes, I realize the energy example may not be realistic energy amounts for said caliber but this is just an example for purposes of discussion)
IMHO Damage to the intended target is an important consideration when choosing caliber and ammunition be it for hunting, or even self defense against animals, or humans, and the location we are wanting to use our firearm and ammunition. Ie, in many instances, we want to reduce any potential for collateral damage.ba
The other question I ask to everyone, is how important is your consideration of damage to your target do you consider when choosing a caliber and ammunition for said caliber?
The first mistake in your reasoning is you are asking a board full of strangers... 99%+ of whom have never killed anybody, have never shot anybody, have never been shot or have ever seen a human gunshot wound... but are somehow expected to have some magical ballistics expertise. (I include myself in that 99%+). Amongst my fellow 99%'ers bullet lethality seems to have more to do with religion than science. Personally, I subscribe to the bigger the diameter the better camp... but there are so many variables I don't believe it is possible to pick one bullet that is going to be the best in every possible situation.
With the long history of 9mm in Europe and the long history of .38 diameter projectiles in the US I would bet this diameter bullet is responsible for more human deaths than all other handgun calibers put together.
Carry what you are comfortable with and quite worrying about what the next guy thinks is the ultimate self defense round.
The question was about "damage", not lethality.
Yes, and so is its ability to effect a rapid physical stop.Lethal is defined by "what or where" a bullet hits;
The more energy the bullet has, the harder it is to stop and in theory will do more damage to its intended target.
Yes, and so is its ability to effect a rapid physical stop.
Yep!When facing a serious threat to their life; most will shoot without considering if the shot will be lethal, a rapid physical stop or a flesh wound. They won't consider the "reactionary gap", the Tueller Drill or anything else except stopping the threat.
Yes indeed!Damage to material is the result of work,
Work is energy.... work takes energy...
Yep!
Yes indeed!
Work is energy.
If we are constrained to damage, and not lethality, then kinetic energy is king. Damage to material is the result of work, work takes energy and the ONLY energy a bullet has when it arrives at the target is kinetic energy (assuming no energetic payload). That energy may or may not do what you want the way you want it but that is the only energy source you have to effect the target.
The more energy the bullet has, the harder it is to stop and in theory will do more damage to its intended target.
We are not discussing fluid dynamics.Why is "energy" king when discussing fluid dynamics with service calibers?
Iy was a forgone conclusion that someone would bring up the subject of momentum here.There are those who are a lot smarter than me who argue that momentum/penetration is primary...
Nope, not at all.As Entropy said, that is a flawed premise, so all the discussion that follows is irrelevant.
More accurately, momentum is the measure of how the velocities (speeds and direction) of objects change when they collide.Momentum is the measure of how hard something is to stop.
kinetic energy , which is equal to work is "the thing" in penetration via tissue destruction.McPherson argued that kinetic energy per se is not the thing.
Correct. They are both pieces of the puzzle, but getting the whole puzzle figured out takes more than just two small pieces.There is no simple answer that only uses energy or only use momentum as you might see in a high school level physics course.
Well said.We do terminal ballistics a disservice by trying to simplify it to just one number.
The US Army went back to 45 caliber over 38 caliber in the early 1900s versus the Moros. Why? The 45 caliber would put them down there....