Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 152

Thread: Terminal Ballistics - Experience, Experiments, Theories, Etc ...

  1. #41
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    931

    Default

    Read through some of this...

    Can't see tho' what 'statement' OP wants to make -- for that matter what is the point agreed (or disagreed) anyone is trying so hard to relate?

    1.) Use a reliable gun with cartridge/load/projectile for the task
    2.) Aim in the proper direction
    3.) Pull trigger
    4.) Have poi on poa or near thereabouts
    %.)... a well hit living thing goes down - probability lights out going down for the count.

    What is the grand mastery made of some apparent mystery here?

    What kills stuff fast is:
    A.) Shot placement
    B.) Penetration into vitals
    C.) Destruction to vitals, vascular system, or central nervous system
    D.) Breakin' 'em down structurally in addition to A,B, & C.

    All this KO, KE and cavitation stuff is for writers and readers to have some theoretical fun over. In the field... use enough gun for the job, find a good projectile, be accurate, and hit whatever it is in the right place(s).

    (s) every critter is different and every scenario can be as well.

  2. #42
    Premium Member MarineHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elmerkeithclone View Post
    Yes indeed! This whole shooting thing is like a revolving door. I have a tablet full of the exact thing we are talking about in this thread so it isn't like I'm against it or anything. Some of those notes are dated to the late 70's and there are more from the early 90's. So I guess once you've hashed out and played all of the numbers games enough you just sort of move on...for awhile anyway. They certainly do have their place and there is merit in figuring that stuff out. I remember the feeling of satisfaction that came from making all of those entries in that note book.

    My only advice in regards to hunting that applies to young guys like you MH is get after it while you can! I worked an average of 58 hrs/week for 30 years with the idea that I'll spend my retirement years in the field with gun in hand. I just turned 52 years old and am already on my second titanium knee on the left side and am concidering doing it to the right one. What this means is that my brother leaves on saturday for the Alaskan penninsula in quest of a big brown furry and I get to stay home. Nobody that limps like I do after a 3 mile stalk on a coyote has any business trying a 16 day hunt in that country.

    I for sure messed up my chance at becoming a salty old brown bear hunter.... just make sure you don't do the same!
    I hope they fix your knees so that you can do more of what you want to do.

    Sadly, I'm not too young--42. And I do feel like I never know how long I will get to do this kind of this. Part of me wants to do it for myself, but also to inspire my boys. Though they won't be able to go this time, I hope to inspire them and get them hunting soon and plan hunting adventures with them before it's too late (oldest is six).

  3. #43
    Premium Member MarineHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Richardson View Post
    ...
    Use a reliable gun

    cartridge/load/projectile for the task

    Penetration into vitals

    Destruction to vitals, vascular system, or central nervous system

    Breakin' 'em down structurally

    find a good projectile,
    What achieves those things is what the thread is about.

  4. #44
    Member 1Cor15:19's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dillingham, AK
    Posts
    2,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineHawk View Post
    1Cor: I, of course, also accept that it is the bullet that causes any and all of this. It's just that saying that the bullet produces hydrodynamic pressure, to me, is no different than saying that the bullet produces kinetic energy. Because of the likely non-linear relationship between the bullet velocity and the hydrodynamic pressure at a given moment in time and the fact the bullet mass likely has a linear relatinship to the bullet's ability to sustain this pressure, it seems possible to me that it's fair to say that the bullet produces KE, which (for a given bullet shape), in theory, may produce lateral pressures relative tot he KE. Now, you can mess that up the more variable you change (bullet weight, shape, construction, etc ...). FWIW, assuming that this is true (for the sake or argument alone), the vaporization concept I mentioned months ago is consistent with this in that the vaporization essentially is a pressure-induced deformation of tissue theoretically related to the transfer of energy from the bullet to the impacted tissue.
    Just for the record, I do not think the idea of KE performing damage is technically correct so I stay away from equating them, but I'll admit the end result is the same. To quote the article you linked again:
    The best explanation of actual wounding potential is very simple. It relies upon the 7th grade definition of energy. Remember? "Energy is the ability to do work" In terms of terminal ballistics, "work" involves all aspects of the bullet-target interaction event; but not all of this kinetic energy is applied to effective work.http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b....html#terminal
    KE is simply the amount of work a bullet can perform. Some "work" can be in bullet deformation, in hydrodynamic pressure or in a host of other things. KE is not transferred to the tissue it is transformed into tissue destroying mechanisms. The more efficiently it is transformed--i.e. the 45/70 in your illustration-the less KE is necessary for significant tissue destruction.

    IMO the issue of tissue vaporization is better explained by other terminal components, namely velocity, than by KE. Higher velocity will create more "vaporization" at similar levels of KE. Consider two cartridges, a 7mm (160 grain) and a .458 (600 grain) that both produce 4000 foot pounds of KE fired into a water based medium of your choice; will they produce equal "vaporization?" I predict the increased hydrodynamic pressure from the 7mm will display more significant "vaporization." KE is equal, but I suspect that terminal performance will be significantly different. I am not arguing which is a better cartridge or better killer--I am only considering "vaporization." Both have the same theoretical ability to inflict tissue damage, but I suspect that the 7mm bullet will transform more of its KE into hydrodynamic pressure and therefor "vaporize" more tissue than the 458 bullet. IMO KE does not seem to predict vaporization in this case; velocity does. Perhaps a better comparison would be a 120 grain 7mm and a 180 grain 7mm at the same KE striking a water based medium. The 120 grain would create more hydrodynamic pressure, the 180 grain would increase the the peak pressure duration. I've no proof which bullet would "vaporize" the most tissue, but my money is on the 120 as I suspect peak pressure is more significant than the duration, but that's simply an educated guess. KE is the ability to do work, but knowing the amount of KE does not indicate how the work will be done and may cause more confusion than insight IMO.

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rbuck351 View Post
    I think i'm beginning to see where you are comming from. The high velocity exploding bullets that work so well on deer and such are not the best choice for brown bear. If you can get a surprise shot on a BB in the heart lungs he may drop right there and he may not. Exploding there heart lungs does not always kill them immediatly and they can go a long ways in a short time before quitting. What you call a bullet failure (looking like new after recovery) isn't such a bad thing if it was recovered on the hide after breaking both front shoulders. A bullet that explodes and causes massive tissue damage but stops before going through the shoulder will lose you a bear. Save the high speed, massive tissue damage rounds for things they work on. Break him down (both front shoulders) and then kill him. I would probably go with the 300gr Nosler. This is one of those places where bullet weight is more important than velocity.
    I agree with that. I would say that 9 times out of 10, a BBB (Big Brown Bear) will go down faster form a 210 gr Berger shot from a 300 RUM @ 3150 fps, than from a 300 Gr TSX fired from a 375 H&H if shot through the lungs. However, when looking at the big picture, the safer bet for the less than perfect shot would be the latter combo.

    Now, when it comes to deer, most reports I read say the explosive Bergers will penetrate the shoulder and put them right down. However, you stand to loose a lot of meat.

  6. #46
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineHawk View Post
    What achieves those things is what the thread is about.
    Just ribbin' ya guys a little... I still look at these figures, findings, and data.

    Truth be told tho' - here in Alaska - textbook outcomes have a better way of presenting the hunter/shooter by way of experience... That outdoor, practical time and info has little to do with using a gun at all.

    What some of theses things provide in the posts are interesting... more or less determining factors of sorts to make suitable personal choices then the inspired confidence to use whatever - no matter justifications.

  7. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    9,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elmerkeithclone View Post
    This leads me to believe that every single time a bullet meets a critter it is a unique situation that can't be duplicated and thus can't be compared with numbers!
    I'm sure that's completely true.

    KE has gotta be the most ridiculous method imaginable for comparing a cartridge's ability to kill something.

    Anytime a bullet is moving, it's got KE, more or less, depending on how fast it's moving and how much it weighs. Sometimes more KE comes from velocity than Bullet weight, and sometimes vice versa.

    It's not KE that determines how much a bullet will or won't expand. It's the velocity, and the bullet's construction, coupled with the resistance it runs into.

    It's not KE that determines, the size of the wound. It's how the bullet performs when it reaches the resistance of the targeted animal. That, of course is effected by some additional things, including caliber, nose shape, resistance, bullet stability, and I'm sure some other things I've not thought of, or don't even know about.

    How a given amount of KE is expended, is the important thing. A LITTLE energy that is expended in a useful way is more desirable than a LOT of energy that is expended in a way we can't use.

    How much KE, a particular cartridge, or load generates, then, doesn't tell me anything I can use to make a valid comparison, of potential terminal performance. Therefore, it is of no interest to me.

    What IS interesting, is how people agonize over the KE figure, searching for new ways to consider it, bending over backwards, bending the facts to come up with a valid reason to be impressed with it.

    That aside, I don't doubt that there is an effect that could be described as "Shock", but as near as I can tell, it's a function of velocity. AND, like MR said, it doesn't seem to be predictable.

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  8. #48
    Premium Member MarineHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty of the North View Post
    I'm sure that's completely true.

    KE has gotta be the most ridiculous method imaginable for comparing a cartridge's ability to kill something.

    Anytime a bullet is moving, it's got KE, more or less, depending on how fast it's moving and how much it weighs. Sometimes more KE comes from velocity than Bullet weight, and sometimes vice versa.

    It's not KE that determines how much a bullet will or won't expand. It's the velocity, and the bullet's construction, coupled with the resistance it runs into.

    It's not KE that determines, the size of the wound. It's how the bullet performs when it reaches the resistance of the targeted animal. That, of course is effected by some additional things, including caliber, nose shape, resistance, bullet stability, and I'm sure some other things I've not thought of, or don't even know about.

    How a given amount of KE is expended, is the important thing. A LITTLE energy that is expended in a useful way is more desirable than a LOT of energy that is expended in a way we can't use.

    How much KE, a particular cartridge, or load generates, then, doesn't tell me anything I can use to make a valid comparison, of potential terminal performance. Therefore, it is of no interest to me.

    What IS interesting, is how people agonize over the KE figure, searching for new ways to consider it, bending over backwards, bending the facts to come up with a valid reason to be impressed with it.

    That aside, I don't doubt that there is an effect that could be described as "Shock", but as near as I can tell, it's a function of velocity. AND, like MR said, it doesn't seem to be predictable.

    Smitty of the North
    Repeat:

    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty of the North View Post
    KE has gotta be the most ridiculous method imaginable for comparing a cartridge's ability to kill something. ... What IS interesting, is how people agonize over the KE figure, searching for new ways to consider it, bending over backwards, bending the facts to come up with a valid reason to be impressed with it.
    In case you didn't know Smitty, that easily is the most combative, condescending post in the thread.

    I for one am not not "agonizing," but you seem to be in some agony amidst your unbalanced hatred for KE and frustrated derision for anyone who expresses any interest in it at all on a shooting forum. "Impressive. Most impressive. Obi-Wan has taught you well. You have controlled your fear. Now, release your anger. Only your hatred can destroy [those who consider kinetic energy]."

    Moving on, you list a host of factors (which you concede does not even include "some other things [you]'ve not thought of, or don't even know about") and then conclude that only those things (including the ones you don't know about?) matter, but energy does not and cannot matter because energy alone doesn't adequately predict results. Does bullet construction alone preduct vesults? Velocity alone? Caliber alone? Nose shape?

    Among commercially-manufactured cartridges/bullets, can you name me a sub-500 ft-lb handgun cartridge that would surpass the performance on large game of that of a standard 740 ft-lb 240gr .44 Mag loading with hard cast wide meplat bullets (or whatever bullet is best)?

    I doubt you can come up with a clear example. Even if you can, it would be a strange aberration. And even the best of rules have a few exceptions.

    As I said before, if you try really hard, you can make a poorly-designed 750 ft-lb handgun bullet that will perform worse on large game than a sub-500 ft-lb super duper bulllet. But you can't, IMO, do it in reverse. I don't think you can come up with many, if any, examples where the best 750 ft-lb bullet with the best possible caliber/construction/weight combination will not surpass the best sub-500 ft-lb bullet with the best possible caliber/construction/weight combination. This is not a coincidence. Do you think it is? Is it the "most ridiculous imaginable" coincidence?

    It is an illustration of how KE can show, not perfectly, but better than any other one single factor, the potential destructive power of a bullet. Of course, from there, you can make sure it achieves as much of that potential as possible by using the most desirable bullet construction/velocity/mass combination for the particular game; etc... Or you can really screw it up and make it perform terribly with poor bullet construction/weight in a weird velocity. But generally you can't make a low-energy cartridge surpass the effectiveness of a substantially-higher-energy cartridge that uses the best possible selection of bullet style and velocity/mass combination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty of the North View Post
    How a given amount of KE is expended, is the important thing. A LITTLE energy that is expended in a useful way is more desirable than a LOT of energy that is expended in a way we can't use.

    Correct. But on big creatures, I think a A LOT of energy that is expended in a useful way is more desirable than A LOT LESS energy that is expended in a useful way.

    In that sense, it is predictive of potential. Not outcome. Nothing short of fifteen or more variables considered together can do that. Potential.

  9. #49
    Premium Member MarineHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Cor15:19 View Post
    Just for the record, I do not think the idea of KE performing damage is technically correct so I stay away from equating them, but I'll admit the end result is the same. To quote the article you linked again:KE is simply the amount of work a bullet can perform. Some "work" can be in bullet deformation, in hydrodynamic pressure or in a host of other things. KE is not transferred to the tissue it is transformed into tissue destroying mechanisms. The more efficiently it is transformed--i.e. the 45/70 in your illustration-the less KE is necessary for significant tissue destruction.

    IMO the issue of tissue vaporization is better explained by other terminal components, namely velocity, than by KE. Higher velocity will create more "vaporization" at similar levels of KE. Consider two cartridges, a 7mm (160 grain) and a .458 (600 grain) that both produce 4000 foot pounds of KE fired into a water based medium of your choice; will they produce equal "vaporization?" I predict the increased hydrodynamic pressure from the 7mm will display more significant "vaporization." KE is equal, but I suspect that terminal performance will be significantly different. I am not arguing which is a better cartridge or better killer--I am only considering "vaporization." Both have the same theoretical ability to inflict tissue damage, but I suspect that the 7mm bullet will transform more of its KE into hydrodynamic pressure and therefor "vaporize" more tissue than the 458 bullet. IMO KE does not seem to predict vaporization in this case; velocity does. Perhaps a better comparison would be a 120 grain 7mm and a 180 grain 7mm at the same KE striking a water based medium. The 120 grain would create more hydrodynamic pressure, the 180 grain would increase the the peak pressure duration. I've no proof which bullet would "vaporize" the most tissue, but my money is on the 120 as I suspect peak pressure is more significant than the duration, but that's simply an educated guess. KE is the ability to do work, but knowing the amount of KE does not indicate how the work will be done and may cause more confusion than insight IMO.
    I'm pretty close to agreeing with all of this.

    A couple of exceptions: I don't have time to look back right now, but I think I discussed the idea of KE "producing" not "performing" damage. It certainly can do that as when the shock wave of a really big bomb blast kills a person without anything touching him. It happens. I'm not saying that concept applies to bullets, but I don't know if it is semantics as to whether a bullet that produces KE also, idependently causes destruction or whether the KE causes the destruction--at least in terms of matter outside of the bullet path.

    One thing I would modify is you statement that "IMO the issue of tissue vaporization is better explained by other terminal components, namely velocity, than by KE. Higher velocity will create more 'vaporization' at similar levels of KE." Among other factors, I think this depends on the bullet shape. For example, if the wide meplat bullet really has the effect described in the article, it will produce higher lateral pressure than a pointed, non-expanding equal-energy bullet with higher velocity. As the linked author explained somewhere, the big metplat does more of the bullet's laterally (creating increased cavity width) than linearly (increasing cavcity depth). But the wide meplat bullet can offset some of its propensity to sacrifice depth for width because of its stability and lack of yaw when penetrating.

    The idea that "KE is simply the amount of work a bullet can perform" to me precisely states both the value and limitation of KE. It says how much, at the outer limits, a bullet can do, but it does not say how much it will do, which depends on numerous variables.

  10. #50
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default

    "Energy is the ability to do work"
    Darn...where have I heard that before.

    Work is of two types..."mechanical displacement" and "heat".
    Kinetic Energy (velocity and bullet weight) is converted (transfered) into work of both types upon contact with air (also a fluid) THEN the target.

    Mechanical deformation/destruction is what we want, and at it's MOST simple...KE (weight and velocity) + Bullet Construction (to include caliber/meplat/partition) + Shot Placement are the variables that we can control. EACH is important in it's contribution.

    Each is important in differing degrees depending upon what TYPE of deformation/destruction you want.
    Penetration or Cavitation(transfer).

    DO YOU want to penetrate both shoulders...or DO YOU want to turn the insides into jello?
    I prefer the jello route because I don't mind destruction of the heart/liver, and usually the bullet stops before much meat destruction is created from an EXIT wound. Some folks like to punch through both shoulders. I like a neck shot if I can get it...but I'm not mounting heads on the wall. I'm filling the freezer.
    To each his own.

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineHawk View Post
    The idea that "KE is simply the amount of work a bullet can perform" to me precisely states both the value and limitation of KE. It says how much, at the outer limits, a bullet can do, but it does not say how much it will do, which depends on numerous variables.

  11. #51

    Default New Bullet Material

    New bullet material coming out folks that's going to change all this.



    Pelosium: A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the densest element yet known to science. The new element has been named Pelosium. Pelosium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311.

    These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

    The symbol of Pelosium is PU.

    Pelosium's mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons within the Pelosium molecule, leading to the formation of isodopes.

    This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientist to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.
    When catalyzed with money, Pelosium activates CNNadnausium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons as Pelosium.

    Author Unknown.

  12. #52
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty of the North View Post
    Anytime a bullet is moving, it's got KE, more or less, depending on how fast it's moving and how much it weighs. Sometimes more KE comes from velocity than Bullet weight, and sometimes vice versa.

    It's not KE that determines how much a bullet will or won't expand. It's the velocity, and the bullet's construction, coupled with the resistance it runs into.

    It's not KE that determines, the size of the wound. It's how the bullet performs when it reaches the resistance of the targeted animal. That, of course is effected by some additional things, including caliber, nose shape, resistance, bullet stability, and I'm sure some other things I've not thought of, or don't even know about.
    Smitty you are right on the money except more clarification for one thing. (but you are NOT wrong).
    Just more clarification:

    Velocity (and weight) IS Kinetic Energy. They cannot be seperated in the determination of how the bullet performs. Yes, some folks over-rate KE "numbers" to determine a bullet's effectiveness, and perhaps we should seperate Velocity/Weight into individual variables. (or just use "momentum" numbers, perhaps). And Bullet construction matters as much maybe more.

    But, KE is the balance of weight and velocity. Some balances are good for some things...some for others.
    And you SURE can have a "good" or "bad" balance with the same KE number (as we have discussed add-nauseum on three threads so far).

    Some folks like a balance of expanding 300grains @ 2800fps (jello)
    Some folks like a balance of hardcast 405grains @ 1200fps (both shoulders).

    KE is the balance, combined with Meplat/Expansion that determines how much "work", and also determines the "type" of work.

    KE may be overrated (as a pure indication)...but is not "meaningless" as a certain ("meplat" based) ammo manufacturer would have you believe.

    KE and expansion/meplat IS the balance.

    HOW a person chooses that "balance" is personal preferance, based on what type of "work" (destruction) they want.
    I choose Expansion, others choose Meplat. The KE balance is around the 300-400grains range in the 1300-2800fps range.
    With the right SHOT PLACEMENT anything in that range will perform.

  13. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineHawk View Post
    MR: I'm going on memory for the moment, but the author essentially said that the bullet shape (along with other factors, like velocity) effects the amount of hydrodynamic pressure the bullet creates. An ideal shape is the wide meplat, because the blunt shape reacts with the impacted tissue to more violently force the tissue laterally. He said that a mushroomed bullet can simulate this, but rarely exceeds a practical meplat of the diameter of the bullet, because of the rounded shape of the mushroom. Of course, flat-nosed bullets, also can't have a meplat bigger than their diameter as well, and a pointed bullet that will mushroom only on impact can fly further, faster, and flatter than a flat-nosed bullet and thus perform better further down range, but that is a different matter. It's a complicated analysis to estimate the bullet shape effect on the lateral pressure, especially if the bullet shape (as in an expanding bullet) changes over time. But, generally the worst would be a pointed, non-expanding bullet and one of the best would be a big flat-nosed bullet. Of course, if you have enough velocity or diameter with a pointed, non expanding bullet (with which few use to hunt) or some other aerodynamic expanding bullet, that could overcome the less-than ideal shape.

    Thus, the argument to me for a big slow flat-nosed bullet would be that you can fire it at relatively-low velocity in a light, low-recoiling rifle, and still get a a very good effect (and as the linked author notes, the stability of wide-meplat bullets facilitate increased penetration to some degree, but, again, that's another matter). The arguments for a well-designed fast expanding bullet could be that it will retain adequate velocity further down range, with less wind drift, and will shoot flatter further down range (in some cases, quite considerably), and the mushroomed bullet can create an effective meplat causing hydrodanimic pressure and permanent cavitation comparable to a bigger bullet, and with the right cartridge/bullet combination, you still likely will produce adequate penetration.

    Bullet mass matters after impact because a lighter bullet will slow down much faster than a heavier one. As my father explained to me recently, if you hit an animal with the flat side of a .45" diameter coin at the same velocity as a 45-70 full-meplat bullet, for a millisecond (or whatever), it would have the same effect as the bullet, but it would do a tiny fraction of the damage that the .45-cal. bullet would do, because the coin would stop very quickly (perhaps almost instantaneuously), whereas the 405gr bullet would keep going.
    Yup, Yup and Yup... Not much to debat here - bummer \

    That's the reason I like the E-Tip out of the 300 RUM, or any cartridge, but the 300 RUM gives it a lot of extra impact smack. It opens wide, with a blunt, flat frontal area, and retains it's maas. If the author's observations and theories are true, and I believe they are, with a bullet like the E-Tip, you will get a larger wound channel than with conventional lead core bullets. And the more velocity the better. A 180 gr E-Tip coming out of a 300 RUM @ 3400 fps would be one bone crushing, big deep hole making round. I would feel VERY comfortable shooting it at ANYTHING in NA.

    Can't argue that some of the big slow bullets with relatively low recoil aren't effect. But the GS bullet makers go the other direction using both the effects of velocity (KE IME) and momentum. Their monometal bullets are designed to be light and fast and their banded construction along with a proprietary molly coating are also designed to increase velocity. They encourage the use of smaller calibers (low recoil) with higher velocities to get the job done. Such as shooting 400 lb wildebeests with 22 and 25 cal bullets at velocities well in excess of 4000 fps. A Friend of mine here in MT used these bullets in some different cartridges with very good results. Going from memory now, he reported shooting a deer with a high velocity 25 or 6.5 cal round entering the front shoulder and exiting the rear ham. Critter went right down. The exit hole was not huge and the lungs were turned to jelly. He said there was very little meat damage and he could eat the meat right up to the bullet hole. At high velocities the GS bullets will shed their petals, but the remaining frontal area will slightly expand into a blunt flat surface slightly larger than the bullet diameter, creating a good wound channel and getting good penetration.

  14. #54
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MontanaRifleman View Post
    That's the reason I like the E-Tip out of the 300 RUM, or any cartridge, but the 300 RUM gives it a lot of extra impact smack. It opens wide, with a blunt, flat frontal area, and retains it's mass. If the author's observations and theories are true, and I believe they are, with a bullet like the E-Tip, you will get a larger wound channel than with conventional lead core bullets. And the more velocity the better. A 180 gr E-Tip coming out of a 300 RUM @ 3400 fps would be one bone crushing, big deep hole making round. I would feel VERY comfortable shooting it at ANYTHING in NA.
    That warrants taking a look at for those of us into the EXPANSION side of the house. Thanks Montana.
    http://www.cabelas.com/p-0054267216521a.shtml

  15. #55
    Member 1Cor15:19's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dillingham, AK
    Posts
    2,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MontanaRifleman View Post
    He probably doesn't mention mass because his emphasis is on velocity shape. We know that without mass there would be no KE or momentum no matter how much velocity, but, we also know KE is affected much more by velocity than mass.
    It is not that his emphasis is on velocity, but that hydrodynamic pressure is most affected by velocity, and that hydrodynamic pressure is the destructive agent. KE does not destroy tissue. KE is the measure of the potential destructive capabilities of the projectile
    Quote Originally Posted by MontanaRifleman View Post
    I think you meant to say that as bullet's shape changes, it's SD (vs mass) also changes? Unless by changing shape you meant fragmentation of the bullet. And yes I do agree just about, if not, completely with his conclusions.
    SD (sectional density) is not affected by a bullet's shape. A 180 grain .308 caliber bullet has an SD of .271. It doesn't matter if it is a RN, SP, HPBT or if it is made out of lead, copper or silver for that matter, the SD is still .271. Shape is not the only determining factor concerning the mass of the projectile. SD is only a helpful descriptor when considering bullets of similar composition as it may then indicate contrasting aspects of terminal performance. When comparing two projectiles of different composition and the same mass, say a bullet made of pure lead and another made of pure copper, considering that the two bullets share the same SD doesn't provide helpful information IMO.

    The shape & velocity (only considering the projectile now) are the determining factors in the crush cavity diameter caused by hydrodynamic pressure.
    Quote Originally Posted by MontanaRifleman View Post
    If the shrapnel pieces only cavitated holes equal to or a little larger than their size, the result would be perforated lungs vs liquefied lungs. This implies to me that what we call KE produced enough violence to destroy the tissue even though it may not have been as tough or elastic as muscle tissue.
    KE did not produce this damage; bullet deformation, various types of pressure, and crushing among other things destroyed the tissue. KE only suggests how much work a projectile might do--it gives no indication of the actual work that will be performed. Each piece of shrapnel will also produce some hydrodynamic pressure that exceeds the wound cavity caused by the actual crushing of the projectile.
    Quote Originally Posted by MontanaRifleman View Post
    I think you can establish trends.
    I too believe we can establish trends, but knowing a projectile's KE is very limited in its ability to establish any trend. I'd go so far as to say that without knowing either the mass or the velocity, knowing the KE of a small arm projectile is meaningless.

    I think I've heard that before.

  16. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    9,154

    Default

    MarineHawk:
    I suppose you could make the case that I'm "Combative", and/or "Condescending", and I admit to some impatience with all the discussion over something that IMO, doesn't deserve all the attention that it's getting.

    And, of course, you're the one who brought it up AGAIN, and, in response to MY POST. I don't mind, and I didn't think you'd mind, if I gave my point of view again. Actually, I figgered you expected it.

    However, I said what I said, and I wait for someone to show me that I'm wrong. To my simple mind, you seem to be talking all around the subject, agreeing with everyone, about everything associated with terminal performance, yet somehow, thinking you've proved the value of considering KE, for Terminal Performance purposes.

    This may help. KE is not one of a "host of factors", and one that I've ignored. It's only a method of calculating the result of a couple of the factors, worthy of consideration in Terminal Performance. (I hope I said that right. I'm not a Gunsmith or a wordsmith.)

    KE, in Foot Pounds is listed in Ballistics tables. It's there for comparing the potential terminal performance with that of other cartridges. It doesn't do that well. In fact, it practically doesn't do that at ALL, because it gives a RONG impression.

    IMO, that isn't difficult, for someone, if he's willing to face the facts.

    Anyway, because of my......
    "unbalanced hatred for KE and frustrated derision for anyone who expresses any interest in it at all on a shooting forum." (That's pretty good, except for being inaccurate.)

    and assuming it will make you more comfortable, I'm willing to bow out of this thread until you REELY need my help again. JUST HOLLER.

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  17. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty of the North View Post
    KE, in Foot Pounds is listed in Ballistics tables. It's there for comparing the potential terminal performance with that of other cartridges. It doesn't do that well. In fact, it practically doesn't do that at ALL, because it gives a RONG impression.

    Smitty of the North
    Since I'm being so agreeable in this thread, I'll agree with this too. I do not find KE to be a useful number or determiner of a round's potential. I look at velocity, weight (mass) and bullet type/construction.

    That being said, I do believe that high velocity, and bullets that are constructed in such a way as to provide a high shock value go a long way in putting game down quickly....... usually. High KE numbers will usually correlate, but it's the velocity and the bullet I look at.

  18. #58

    Default

    RULES TO STAY ALIVE WHEN HUNTING DANGEROUS GAME
    By: Mike Price (beartooth)
    (hog, lion, bear, moose, buffalo, any animal that cops an attitude)


    1. Take a good controlled fed rifle (or premium push feed) to do the job you are asking it to perform.

    2. It must be a rifle that you know and are familiar with, because you have spent a lot of time holding it in your hands working the action and safeties so as to learn it’s peculiarities!

    3. Shoot it from different positions and at varying ranges until you are proficient at all positions and ranges you will possibly shoot!

    4. There is no such thing as the all around or magic cartridge, just some good ones that do the job very well, if you do yours!

    5. Only center hits in the vital kill area counts, or a dangerous animal might teach you the difference!

    6. Make the deepest hole you can to insure that vital organs, nerve centers, blood arteries and pivotal skeletal structure can be reached and destroyed from all impact angles!

    7. Reaching vitals at all angles won't happen if the bullet does not hold up and fragments or sheds it’s jacket or bends, so don't buy cheap factory ammunition or cheap bullets if you hand-load!

    8. Do not shoot a cartridge that you are not able to handle because of excessive recoil and that will negatively affect your accuracy!

    9. Your intent is to shoot a cartridge that you can keep under control and will make the biggest possible diameter exit hole (if angle and distance allows), to let blood out and air in!

    10. Make sure your shot is an affective one in that the distance is reasonable to ensure a judicious kill!

    11. All dangerous game when shot are still dangerous so "SERVICE" your threat until it is no longer a threat, that means until it won't, can't and doesn't breath nor moves, especially if it is at close quarters, if NOT you might get BIT, CUT UP, STOMPED, BROKE IN HALF, or EATEN!!!
    A GUN WRITER NEEDS:
    THE MIND OF A SCHOLAR
    THE HEART OF A CHILD
    THE HIDE OF A RHINOCEROS

  19. #59
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default

    KE only suggests how much work a projectile might do--it gives no indication of the actual work that will be performed.
    Yes it does give an accurate indication of the actual work that will be performed. Just not the TYPE. For that you have to look at the actual weight and velocity (and bullet shape).

    Type 1: (high velocity) it will be more "cavitation" type work (with maximum energy conversion/transfer), or

    Type 2: more "penetration" type work...where much of the energy is carried through the target and out the other side...less is transfered into the target. "penetration" type work.

    Which kind do you want.

    Type 1...use a low velocity heavy solid slug.
    Type 2...use a FAST expanding slug.

    But ENERGY numbers DO give a "basic" idea of how much work will result...just not what KIND of work (destruction).

    I too believe we can establish trends, but knowing a projectile's KE is very limited in its ability to establish any trend. I'd go so far as to say that without knowing either the mass or the velocity, knowing the KE of a small arm projectile is meaningless.
    Still a misleading statement (to me).

    You could say the same about "velocity is meaningless" or "Bullet weight is meaningless" or "meplat is meaningless" or "shot placement is meaningless" or the "gravitiational pull of the freakin moon" is meaningless. They are ALL meaningless without each other. But KE is necessary for bullet movement.

    Example: I'm going to officially say "meplat is meaningless". Large meplat or small...it's all the same...at least without some Kinetic Energy, it's "meaningless". Because without energy...MEPLAT ain't gonna do squat...except sit in the chamber...kinda meaningless if you ask me. (silly, ain't it?). Give me the energy numbers and the bullet weight...and velocity is meaningless to me (cuz I can figure it out). Give me energy numbers and velocity and bullet weight is meaningless to me (again, cuz I can figure it out). But, do I claim bullet weight is "meaningless"? Or velocity is meaningless? Hell no.

    NONE are meaningless...but some (like the moon's effects) are negligable. But IF you get a heavy enough projectile...even the moon's effects suddenly become important. It is STILL the energy that does the actual work. Combine that knowlege with bullet size/shape and you can make a pretty good approximation of destruction.

    The bottom line for me is that for someone to claim only Hardcast Meplat bullets are any good, and high energy related EXPANDING bullets are unreliable...is full of (marketing)crap. I have seen the results of EXPANDING bullets (resulting from lots of energy) and it is GREATER than the SUM of it's variables. (IMHO).

  20. #60
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default The POINT of energy numbers...

    One "meaningful" use of Pure Energy numbers is to compare two rounds of the same caliber.

    Example: (two 30-06 rounds)

    30-06 round number one: 3000ftlbs
    30-06 round number two: 2000ftlbs

    Without knowing velocity OR weight...which round will you choose (both 30-06 rounds).


    Example 2: (two 45-70 rounds)

    45-70 round number one: 3000ftlbs
    45-70 round number two: 2000ftlbs

    Without knowing velocity OR weight...which round will you choose (both 45-70 rounds).

    To assume that someone is going to compare the energy numbers of a .223 and a 45-70 and they could conclude the .223 is better (so we should ignore energy numbers)...is just misleading.

    To say that Meplat is the only important variable (as long as you have 1300fps) is also misleading. Don't sell EXPANDING bullets short! Nosler Partitions. Barnes TSX. Accubonds. Trophy Bonded Bear Claws.
    All come highly recommended.

    There is another world besides "hardcasts".

    Bottom line:
    300-400 grains of WHATEVER traveling at 1300-2800fps combined with good shot placement (in the neck, just below the ears like Dad taught me)...will work for ME! But I'll take the higher 2800fps+++ EVERYTIME given the choice.

    But, I like jello better than liver. Lotta meat in those shoulders too.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •