Energy Dump - A Self-Defining Term

Status
Not open for further replies.
If they both make the same diameter hole to the same depth, yes
.

male bovine fecal matter
Let's try to avoid this kind of language, shall we?

Quote:
So, yes. I have seen many a bullet wound close up.

how then can you think your above statement is true?
Because it matches my actual observation of wounds -- which includes more than just bullet wounds.
Quote:
How does what manufacturers list or don't list contribute to the stopping power of a round?

because they know more about balistics and bullet design and performance than you or I do.kinda makes me belive they might have a clue how their ammo performs.
How does that answer the question, "How does what manufacturers list or don't list contribute to the stopping power of a round?"
 
How does that answer the question, "How does what manufacturers list or don't list contribute to the stopping power of a round?"
because they list penatration in inches not "through and through"
That's exactly what I'm saying.
you just lost your credibility
 
Vern,

From what I've gathered from your posts, and the recent steel ball comparison, you believe that temporary cavities and kinetic energy play no role whatsoever in wounding. Please correct me if I'm wrong, no offense meant whatsoever.

That said, I think it is a little naive and moreover outright wrong to believe that at very high velocities and kinetic energy levels nothing else happens besides the hole the bullet cuts (including fragmentation and yawing).
 
Vern,

What I'm going to pose next has no direct bearing on the discussion of practical defensive handgun rounds, but has bearing on the physics of interacting bodies.

Again, assume we're talking about steel balls that won't deform. Just assume that, okay? You said there would be no difference if we doubled the velocity from 1500 to 3000. What if we increased the velocity 5 times (7500 fps) or even ten times (15,000 fps). Certainly you recognize the projectile would create massive destruction, most likely shredding the "target" into dozens of flying fragments. Right?

K
 
Vern, the temporary cavity MUST affect the amount of damage caused when such cavitation occurs at a magnitude or rate that the host medium cannot comply with.

It simply must, sir.

If the subject's tissues cannot be displaced or stretched to accommodate that cavity, then they must rupture. If I can dig up some radiographs I will PM them to you: they are a nice comparison between handgun, rifle and shotgun wounds to the adult male wrist. The displacement of the bones in the wrist that was shot with the Galil clone is more marked and resulted in more damage than the equivalent shot with a service handgun.
 
I think its not particularly relevant to discuss the difference between low velocity projectiles (such has handgun) to high velocity projectiles (such are rifle). It is well accepted by pretty much everyone that a high powered rifle round moving at 3000 fps are going to cause much more damage than an equivalent weight handgun projectile moving at 800 fps.

The real question is whether or not a projectile moving at 900 fps does any more damage than one moving at 800 fps, if neither bullet deforms, and if penetration is the same. I do not believe it would, because there is not enough energy involved to cause direct trauma from energy alone.
 
Quote:
How does that answer the question, "How does what manufacturers list or don't list contribute to the stopping power of a round?"
because they list penatration in inches not "through and through"
And how does "listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" contribute to the stopping power of a round?

Quote:
That's exactly what I'm saying.

you just lost your credibility

I don't think so.
 
Vern, the temporary cavity MUST affect the amount of damage caused when such cavitation occurs at a magnitude or rate that the host medium cannot comply with.

It simply must, sir.

If the subject's tissues cannot be displaced or stretched to accommodate that cavity, then they must rupture. If I can dig up some radiographs I will PM them to you: they are a nice comparison between handgun, rifle and shotgun wounds to the adult male wrist. The displacement of the bones in the wrist that was shot with the Galil clone is more marked and resulted in more damage than the equivalent shot with a service handgun.
A more powerful round can break bones that might stop a less powerful round. A bullet which expands, breaks up, or otherwise reacts on impact will have a different terminal effect than one that stays intact.

But by and large, "energy dump" is a myth.

It's the hole that kills. The bigger the hole, and the deeper it is, the more effective it will be, given equal placement.
 
JON in WV,

Well, I had a very similar retort as Soybomb did, but he beat me to it. And quite a bit more than adequately, too.

First, I'm not name-calling, I'm challenging. I called you out, and you didn't like it. I didn't think it was so harsh, but apparently you did. That's hardly what I'd call an attack, but I apologize anyway. You dismissed Patrick's report, which as Soybomb has already said, is full of footnotes and quotes by qualified experts on the subject he was discussing. I tend to put some stock in his reports because of the opinions and facts presented by others that he actually used in his report. Yes, today's experts have a great deal of respect for his reports. You don't, yet you have nothing but conjecture and disdain as reasons for doing so.

Second, neither I nor anyone else has called Patrick's reports "gospel." That's a term you branded it with a dose of sarcasm on the side. Asking you what you know and what your credentials are is nothing more than an opportunity for you to strut your stuff..... If Patrick (and whomever else you don't care for) is so simple-minded and out of date, then by all means let us in on the secrets of modern times.

Third, most people even remotely interested in the subject of ballistics on the handgun or long rifle level know that technology has changed things in the last 20 years. That point has been made SO many times.

Fourth, I can't help feeling like your defensiveness and "counter-attack" only validate the statements I first made about your "attack" on Patrick. You see, that knife cuts both ways, doesn't it? I've heard your rebuttal to any who don't agree with you. I'm still waiting for your technical and anecdotal rebuttal to the data and opinion laid before us by all of these "know-nothing" "experts." Like I said, if it's mostly worthless, then by all means....share the true "gospel." :scrutiny:

By the way, I've read Marshall and Sanow, Patrick, Duncan Mcpherson, Ayoob, Patrick, Fackler, Roberts, etc. And several more. While I call nothing "gospel", I don't discount anybody who has taken the pains and gone to that much trouble to try and come up with something usable. You might try it sometime.
 
And how does "listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" contribute to the stopping power of a round?
so now you dont think penatration contributes to stopping power.
But by and large, "energy dump" is a myth.
no energy = no hole, more energy =more hole .
until you understand this concept, you will not understand how rate of transfer affects wound tracts.
 
Quote:
And how does "listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" contribute to the stopping power of a round?

so now you dont think penatration contributes to stopping power.

How do you get that? Did I not say, "It's the hole that kills. The wider and deeper the hole, given proper placement, the better it kills?"

Now please answer the question: how does "listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" contribute to the stopping power of a round?

Quote:
But by and large, "energy dump" is a myth.
no energy = no hole, more energy =more hole .
Which is not the same thing as "energy dump."

A .45 at 1,000 fps is a formidable round, and will kill just as well as a .243 with more energy, all other things being equal. "Energy dump" is a myth.
until you understand this concept, you will not understand how rate of transfer affects wound tracts.
And until you understand it's the hole that kills . . .:rolleyes:
 
Now please answer the question: how does "listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" contribute to the stopping power of a round?
OK it doesn't BUT I"M SMART ENOUGH TO NOT BUY AMMO FROM A MANUFACTURE WHO CLAIMS IT"LL PUT A BIG HOLE THROUGH AND THROUGH.
And until you understand it's the hole that kills
once again from page 2 and 6
I Know I've seen a bullet,that I chrono'd the ammo,was going less than 1300fps hit a 225 lb boar in the back muscle. that never entered the chest cavity,do enough damage to the lungs the animal died within' seconds
.
 
Quote:
Now please answer the question: how does "listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" contribute to the stopping power of a round?
OK it doesn't BUT I"M SMART ENOUGH TO NOT BUY AMMO FROM A MANUFACTURE WHO CLAIMS IT"LL PUT A BIG HOLE THROUGH AND THROUGH.
But you're not smart enough -- until I repeated the question over and over -- to understand that listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" does not contribute to the stopping power of a round.:p
 
The real question is whether or not a projectile moving at 900 fps does any more damage than one moving at 800 fps, if neither bullet deforms, and if penetration is the same.
Of course it would do more damage.
But the real question then becomes:
How much more damage?

But by and large, "energy dump" is a myth.
No, energy dump is certainly not a myth.
Getting punched by a 5 year old does not hurt you as much as getting punched by an adult boxer.
Why?
Because the boxer generates more force and more kinetic energy, and then deposites that energy (ie: energy dump) in to your body.
More energy equals more damage.

If you drop a brick onto the top of a car as about 5 feet, it will not damage the car very much.
But if you drop that same brick from about 500 feet, it will cause the car great damage.
Why?
Because the brick dropped from the higher point will deliver more energy to the car when it hits.


It has been know for a very long time that hollow-points from a handgun are more effective as "man stoppers" than ball ammo from a handgun.
This is for two reasons:

1) The bullet typically deforms and expands to create a slightly larger hole.

and

2 The bullet is much less likely to over-penetrate and so will stay in the body...thereby dumping all of its energy in to that body.


Rounds that deliver more energy to the target are more effective, all other things being equal.
A .357 round will typically be more effective on a human than a .38 round even if they have equal penetration and equal wound size.
Why?
The .357 has more energy to dump into the target.
 
But you're not smart enough -- until I repeated the question over and over -- to understand that listing penetration in inches and not "through and through" does not contribute to the stopping power of a round.
however by listing penatration in inches it allows an intelagent person to compair the penatration ov various rounds."through and through" is not even good grammer and leaves no basis for compairing various rounds.so if they list vairous rounds penatration in inches it allows a person to make a thoughtful desision on the relative stopping power of an individual round.
 
Of course it would do more damage.
But the real question then becomes:
How much more damage?

I don't think thats true. As long as you do not exceed the ability of the cells to absorb the small amount of extra energy that a 900fps round has over a 800 fps round, then no additional wounding will occur.
 
No, energy dump is certainly not a myth.
Getting punched by a 5 year old does not hurt you as much as getting punched by an adult boxer.
First of all, the punch is mostly a matter of momentum, not kinetic energy.

Secondly, neither the 5-year old nor the pro will make a hole in you.

The mechanics of a punch with a fist and a bullet impact are much different from each other.

None of the examples you gave covered "energy dump." No one denies that a faster moving bullet can penetrate deeper and/or expand wider.

But the "energy dump" theory basically says that a bullet that does not exit is more lethal than one that does -- because the former will have "dumped" all it's energy and the latter retains some of it as it goes sailing downrange.

The most lethal bullet will be the one that makes the widest, deepest hole -- and through-and-through penetration as as deep as you can make the hole, regardless of how fast the bullet is going (and how much residual kinetic energy it has) when it exits.
 
however by listing penatration in inches it allows an intelagent person to compair the penatration ov various rounds."through and through" is not even good grammer
I repost this so people can see how an "intelagent" person "compairs" penetration "ov" various rounds using good "grammer.":rolleyes:
 
Here's my best take on this whole thing:

Let's say we have two handgun rounds. Let's also make the following assumptions:
  • One is FMJ
  • One is JHP
  • FMJ will penetrate completely through the target
  • JHP will stay in the target, but penetrate enough to hit organs
  • The bullets have the same mass
  • The bullets travel at the same velocity

So, the two rounds will have the same energy, but the FMJ will not transfer all of its energy to the target. Since energy is required to do work, which in our case means tear tissue, the more energy used, the better. If tissue is acted on with a tensile force that exceeds its yield point, it will be damaged. Tissue is very elastic, so the energy necessary may be the same as that to actually tear it. It is important to know that for materials, including tissue, energy is consumed by deformation, and can be approximated by the area under its respective stress-strain curve.

Now, the clear problem with the comparison is projectile size after impact. Because the projectile would continue through the target, the excess kinetic energy/momentum must be transferred in full before stopping in the target. the simplest way to do this is increase the cross-section size in the direction of travel, giving more surface area for the energy to transfer. The increased area of transfer allows the projectile to damage more tissue along the path, resulting in a more effective round, assuming sufficient penetration. This also reduces the stress (by increase of area, since stress is force divided by area) on the tissue ahead of the round, halting the round sooner. This increase in area may also sacrifice the last bit of energy, since the tissue at the very end of the wound channel can elastically absorb more energy without breaking if there is more area.

Because of the relative size, let's ignore momentum as a big contributor to damage, and look at kinetic energy. Momentum is an important underlying concept, as the bullet will stay in motion until acted on by external forces - resistance of the tissue to deformation. The bullet will have two forms of significant kinetic energy - one from velocity, one from rotation. The former will be larger than the latter. As stated earlier, this energy, in the JHP, must be completely transferred if it is to stop. Thus, more work has been done inside of the target. The only situation in which a more direct comparison could be made is if the JHP hit something while in the body (bone, maybe?) and stopped. If it was suddenly stopped in the target, the remaining energy will be transferred, possibly resulting in another fracture.

The problem with this discussion is that there is no real way to compare two rounds of identical energy, mass, and velocity hitting identical targets, but transferring drastically different amounts of energy. The best we can do is understand that penetration and hole size are the main factors in the wound, and that it consumes energy to make that hole. No momentum/inertia, no hole. No energy, no hole.
 
Kinetic energy, also called energy transfer, does not, by itself, kill bad guys. It does not knock them down. It is not, by itself, a man stopper.

How about getting hit by a car? KO by a punch to the head?
What about millions of people beaten to death, smashed with sticks, rocks?
Kinetic energy doesn’t kill people? Do you even know what kinetic energy IS?
Trying not to be rude here, but you don’t know what you are talking about. LEARN stuff, don’t repeat what you read without understanding it.

FerFAL
 
Let's say we have two handgun rounds. Let's also make the following assumptions:
One is FMJ
One is JHP
FMJ will penetrate completely through the target
JHP will stay in the target, but penetrate enough to hit organs
The bullets have the same mass
The bullets travel at the same velocity

So, the two rounds will have the same energy, but the FMJ will not transfer all of its energy to the target
.

If both rounds reach the vitals, the wider hole may kill quicker than the deeper, but narrower hole.

But then again, it may not. And if it doesn't reach the vitals, it may not kill at all.

How about getting hit by a car? KO by a punch to the head?
What about millions of people beaten to death, smashed with sticks, rocks?
Kinetic energy doesn’t kill people? Do you even know what kinetic energy IS?
These examples relate to momentum, not to kinetic energy.
 
Quote:
How about getting hit by a car? KO by a punch to the head?
What about millions of people beaten to death, smashed with sticks, rocks?
Kinetic energy doesn’t kill people? Do you even know what kinetic energy IS?
These examples relate to momentum, not to kinetic energy.
The kinetic energy of an object is the extra energy which it possesses due to its motion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

FerFAL
 
If both rounds reach the vitals, the wider hole may kill quicker than the deeper, but narrower hole.
Yes, it may, it may not.

There are many more factors, including that of individual reponse. I am only addressing the concepts of energy transfer/dump/damage in that post. It seems to be common knowledge that different people may react differently to seemingly identical wounds.

These examples relate to momentum, not to kinetic energy.
They're very relevant to kinetic energy. Because of their larger masses, the KE has been increased, although less "efficiently". Energy is required to cause damage. That's why impact tests (breaking a material with a pendulum) measure the amount of energy required to break it. Momentum moves things, energy deforms/damages things.

It takes energy to create momentum.
 
Seems that some people have a problem telling the difference between STOPPING someone and KILLING someone.
Penetration alone may or may not kill people, depends on where you hit.
Transferring more energy will surely stop someone, the more energy you transfer the better, either by using a slow but wide projectile that pushes away more mass, or by using a projectile that expands, achieving somewhat similar results, or using narrow projectiles traveling at much faster speeds ( rifle ammo) the amount of mass they push away as they travel isn’t that much but the greater speed overcompensates. That’s why you may have a FMJ .30 round that works well at putting people down.
Edited to add:
Shoot a bottle of water with a 9mm 115 FMJ round and see what happens ( nothing)
Shoot another bottle with a 9mm round loaded with a light piece of brass rod, traveling at 2000 fps, and that bottle with explode when hit.
Both will penetrate plenty, but the one traveling at 2000 fps will have much greater hydraulic shock, affecting organs in a similar way as it does with a bottle of water. Penetration alone is not enough.


FerFAL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top