Neither have I, but clearly you are NOT a hunter and seem to be under the impression that YouTube has made you knowledgable on the subject. Sadly all you are is tiresome ...
<ignored>
Last edited:
A gel expert explains
- Thread starter labnoti
- Start date
- Status
Neither have I, but clearly you are NOT a hunter and seem to be under the impression that YouTube has made you knowledgable on the subject. Sadly all you are is tiresome ...
<ignored>
Did you not just admit to that?
Not these days, no.
Where did that come from?
Watch the insults. Read the rules to which you agreed, and abide by them.
C-grunt
Member
All of the energy of that fragment was focused on the small surface area of the fragment. When you shoot the recoil force is spread over your whole hand.
I have a few friends that have been shot. Both pistol and rifle. None were knocked down by the impact. In fact one SWAT guy I know was shot twice in the chest during gunfight. His body armor stopped the rounds. He didn't even know he was shot until after he got home and found the holes in his vest while re-setting his gear.
Last edited:
JR24
Member
Seems like a good spot to supplement with this video. There is some graphic language and ... Graphics.
Pudge
Member
Right, that was kind of my point, when all the force is concentrated, comparing it to what is experienced with recoil (which is spread out) isn't really a true comparison. The force of a round which will break bones can have a much more significant result on the target than the recoil felt by the shooter, regardless of penetration. Had that fragment been bigger, it could have broken my leg with no more penetration, and it would have taken me off my feet (not knocked me off my feet), and the difference would be the force delivered by the round, not penetration.
Last edited:
WheelGunMan
Member
C-grunt
Member
I think we are saying the same thing just differently. The amount of energy is the same, but the surface area that is exerting that energy is much different. Injury can definitely cause a person to fall over, but they weren't physically knocked over by the bullet.
Pudge
Member
Right. The officer in the video was put on his back by the first shot, not because of structures which were destroyed by the bullet, but by the trauma caused by the impact of the round.
Certainly: That's because the recoil on the shooter involves a large, slow moving mass, with a force that is spread out, and the equal and opposite force imparted by the bullet to the bone is concentrated, exceeding the yield strength (primarily compressive) of the bone.
Had the fragment been sufficiently large, and had it had sufficient velocity, it might have broken you leg. It would have done so by penetrating your leg.
What does that mean?
Dudedog
Contributing Member
For what it's worth having been shot I can relate what happened to me.
Without going in to long and boring details leading up to the event I was shot at close range with a .380 (using what I believe was a FMJ bullet, bullet not recovered)
The bullet struck me in the rear of the leg passing between my femur and femoral artery. (good thing it missed both!)
I was running (2 or 3 step when hit) and I went down. The bullet did not knock me down but my leg stopped working for a moment. (no longer reporting to brain) since it did work and I was not trying to balance on one leg I went down.
There were no observers other than than scum who shot me but to anyone observing it it would appear that I was shot and the bullet knocked me down, however that was not the case, even tough I did go down.
I tend to agree with simple physics if it does not knock shooter an energy knock down is out of the question. (unless we are talking about something very large say 120mm tank gun)
I have shot deer, some went down, some took a good hit and ran 30 yards, I don't believe any of them were knocked down.
Without going in to long and boring details leading up to the event I was shot at close range with a .380 (using what I believe was a FMJ bullet, bullet not recovered)
The bullet struck me in the rear of the leg passing between my femur and femoral artery. (good thing it missed both!)
I was running (2 or 3 step when hit) and I went down. The bullet did not knock me down but my leg stopped working for a moment. (no longer reporting to brain) since it did work and I was not trying to balance on one leg I went down.
There were no observers other than than scum who shot me but to anyone observing it it would appear that I was shot and the bullet knocked me down, however that was not the case, even tough I did go down.
I tend to agree with simple physics if it does not knock shooter an energy knock down is out of the question. (unless we are talking about something very large say 120mm tank gun)
I have shot deer, some went down, some took a good hit and ran 30 yards, I don't believe any of them were knocked down.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Recoil and energy delivered...
Here's an experiment maybe someone can carry out to demonstrate the old "equal and opposite" theory.
Build a block you can mount a pistol in. Set up a mechanism by which the trigger may be pulled without imparting any motion to this contraption by doing this. Suspend this by a cord swing (two cords attached to allow the block to swing in a back and forth motion only). Set up something to measure how far this block might swing. The mass of the pistol block should be significant, to simulate the relative mass of either a human body, or human body part.
Build another block as a target, suspended in the same fashion as the one holding the pistol. This block should be designed to capture the bullet (not allow it to fully penetrate and exit through the back of the block). This block should be of the same mass as the pistol block with the pistol mounted. Suspend by a cord swing of the same length as the pistol block. The target block should be positioned to capture the bullet fired from the pistol block. Set up something to measure how far this block might swing.
For the purpose of this experiment, it is assumed that the mass of the bullet being transferred from one block to the other is insignificant overall.
Fire the pistol and measure how far the pistol block and the target block swing. You should find that they're identical.
And, if you approximated the mass of a human body, you should also note that neither block really moved all that much. You'll not be duplicating Hollywood special effects, with Arnold the Terminator flying through the air when shot.
Here's an experiment maybe someone can carry out to demonstrate the old "equal and opposite" theory.
Build a block you can mount a pistol in. Set up a mechanism by which the trigger may be pulled without imparting any motion to this contraption by doing this. Suspend this by a cord swing (two cords attached to allow the block to swing in a back and forth motion only). Set up something to measure how far this block might swing. The mass of the pistol block should be significant, to simulate the relative mass of either a human body, or human body part.
Build another block as a target, suspended in the same fashion as the one holding the pistol. This block should be designed to capture the bullet (not allow it to fully penetrate and exit through the back of the block). This block should be of the same mass as the pistol block with the pistol mounted. Suspend by a cord swing of the same length as the pistol block. The target block should be positioned to capture the bullet fired from the pistol block. Set up something to measure how far this block might swing.
For the purpose of this experiment, it is assumed that the mass of the bullet being transferred from one block to the other is insignificant overall.
Fire the pistol and measure how far the pistol block and the target block swing. You should find that they're identical.
And, if you approximated the mass of a human body, you should also note that neither block really moved all that much. You'll not be duplicating Hollywood special effects, with Arnold the Terminator flying through the air when shot.
JR24
Member
First, glad you are OK!
Second, I agree. Both humans and animals might have reactions to the trauma of being shot that may cause them to fall down, jerking off balance, losing muscle control, etc. Not the physical force knocking them over.
Personally I've killed whitetail in similar situations (less than 50 yards, broadside, deer standing still, lung-heart-lung shot, actually in front of the same tree) in the past years with a .30-30 (dropped immediately, DRT) and a .30-06 (ran 50 yards, then crawled another hundred through a fallow field).
If force of the bullet could knock a deer down, I would expect the '06 to have been more immediately effective, such was not the case.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Ladies and Gentleman, I give you Keith Warren, a lifelong hunter, experienced big game hunter, who clearly did not under what stopped and killed this deer, advancing forth a claim that wholly defied physics.
If you have not seen this video, it is absolutely amazing what claims he made.
Prior to this, Demolition Ranch (a fun YT channel to watch) did a video documenting the vacuum sucking power of the .50 BMG that Warren claimed to have sucked the eyeballs out of the deer's head. It won't even pull down a house of playing cards...
Last edited:
JR24
Member
Redacted
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Yeah, you should watch the video before commenting that there is a possible scale issue here, LOL.
FlSwampRat
Member
It does give you some relative idea of how a bullet performs in identical situations and medium. If you tested bullet penetration on an animal carcass, there's no two strike points that are exactly alike. Different bones and tissue underneath will give different results, not to mention how different they'd be on two separate carcasses. Even one single rib bone will have different characteristics an inch apart pre bullet strike.
Certainly hitting a leg vs. hitting the heart is going to be less effective than the cardiac strike.
Not perfect circumstances, identical circumstances. Data must then be extrapolated and interpreted.
It also depends on what you are talking about shooting.
A deer at 11AM on first day of hunting or an orc attempting to rob you at 11PM either when you're out and about or sitting in your house and the orc is kicking in the door.
A humanoid (the orc) is maybe 10" sternum to spine. So half that to vital organs. A bullet penetrating to and reaching full expansion at 12" will be less effective against the orc than one that reaches full expansion at 6" and delivers all of its energy to that point while it wouldn't be very effective on a deer or other larger bodied game. 6" of penetration wouldn't work well on a hog or an elk.
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
The point of full expansion is not where all of the bullet's {remaining} energy is delivered, not unless the bullet comes to a complete stop at that point. As long as a bullet is traveling through a medium, there is energy being lost (transferred, delivered) to that medium.
Last edited:
JR24
Member
I stand corrected. Fascinating.
I was cringing at the waste of good meat for some stupid video (all I care about on whitetail hunting is meat in the freezer myself) but, lo and behold, the perfect meat saving kill shot!
Good thing he didn't actually hit it...
I guess it's worth noting that the BMG carries like twice the energy of even big game hunting loads and is pretty irrelevant for almost any hunting discussion.
FlSwampRat
Member
The point I was making that any kinetic energy that a bullet still has as it continues its path after leaving a body is wasted, not to mention that over penetration outside of the target body threatens any bystanders.
At the same time, any energy not delivered to vital organs isn't likely to produce a "stop threat" situation. A boar, charging a hunter or an orc charging a victim needs to be stopped.
Looking at both the final penetration results in gel as well as high speed video of the wound channel made in the gel can give a relative comparison report on performance of bullets.
Granted anyone looking for identical results in a game animal's carcass as those produced in a block of gel is going to be disappointed.
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Sorry, I missed your point in the misrepresentation of the physics involved in your hypothetical situation and references to mythical creatures.
FlSwampRat
Member
I refer to human bad guys as Orcs or Goblins to clearly indicate I'm not talking about shooting people.
People are good folks you'd go on a picnic with. Orcs burgle your house and threaten you and the ones you love.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Meh.
I used to think this, too. But the "wasted energy" theory is false.
Unless, of course, you're looking at "efficiency" of energy transfer. And we're not.
"Energy transfer", per se, is not the desired outcome with terminal ballistics. The desired outcome is reliable penetration deep enough to reach vital organs, accompanied by puncturing and tearing of tissues sufficient to stop and/or kill the target being shot. Ultimately, all that kinetic energy, if 100% deposited within the body of the target, is converted to heat in the end. We're not trying to cook the target (yet). It's all the physical things that are being damaged by that projectile while doing this which is important.
All that kinetic energy that a projectile has not only serves to perform this, but it must also serve to provide this effect at some distance as well.
That a bullet may pass through the target is, therefore, not "wasted energy". If anything, it's an indication that it has sufficient ability to deeply penetrate the target in the first place.
FlSwampRat
Member
My original line to which you are replying said "The point I was making that any kinetic energy that a bullet still has as it continues its path after leaving a body is wasted, not to mention that over penetration outside of the target body threatens any bystanders."
So you no longer think that energy possessed by a projectile after it passes beyond the target's body is wasted?
Please enlighten me as to what damage is continuing to be done by a bullet no longer in any way interacting with the body in question.
You are replying to a reply, my original post said this:
"
It also depends on what you are talking about shooting.
A deer at 11AM on first day of hunting or an orc attempting to rob you at 11PM either when you're out and about or sitting in your house and the orc is kicking in the door.
A humanoid (the orc) is maybe 10" sternum to spine. So half that to vital organs. A bullet penetrating to and reaching full expansion at 12" will be less effective against the orc than one that reaches full expansion at 6" and delivers all of its energy to that point while it wouldn't be very effective on a deer or other larger bodied game. 6" of penetration wouldn't work well on a hog or an elk."
Please note that it is all about penetration.
Meh indeed.
So you no longer think that energy possessed by a projectile after it passes beyond the target's body is wasted?
Please enlighten me as to what damage is continuing to be done by a bullet no longer in any way interacting with the body in question.
You are replying to a reply, my original post said this:
"
It also depends on what you are talking about shooting.
A deer at 11AM on first day of hunting or an orc attempting to rob you at 11PM either when you're out and about or sitting in your house and the orc is kicking in the door.
A humanoid (the orc) is maybe 10" sternum to spine. So half that to vital organs. A bullet penetrating to and reaching full expansion at 12" will be less effective against the orc than one that reaches full expansion at 6" and delivers all of its energy to that point while it wouldn't be very effective on a deer or other larger bodied game. 6" of penetration wouldn't work well on a hog or an elk."
Please note that it is all about penetration.
Meh indeed.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
No, I don't think the energy is wasted at all.
Neither you, nor anybody else, can reliably tell me that even a .22 will not over penetrate a target body and threaten bystanders.
Besides, over penetration is the least of our worries, statistically speaking, as we're far more likely to miss the majority of our shots in an encounter in the first place, wherein there exists a much greater danger to what lies beyond the target body. Especially in self-defense.
Whether shooting for self-defense or for hunting, we're supposed to be aware of what lies beyond the target body in the first place. Especially with hunting, we're supposed to take what lies beyond the target body into serious consideration as part of the four rules of gun safety.
Ever hunt with a shotgun? Plenty of pellets miss the intended target entirely.
Ever hunt squirrel? I don't know of any squirrel with a body big enough or dense enough to stop a .22.
Ever hunt any small game or varmints? Those small bodies are no impediment to nearly any rifle round .22 and up.
Ever hunt any larger or potentially dangerous game? Neither you nor I can reliably calculate any given load which will ensure the bullet will ONLY penetrate into the body (sufficiently to effectively reach vital organs) and not pass through.
I grant you that using an excessively high powered rifle/cartridge may be unwise under some circumstances. But then, that's why we have such a wide variety of ammunition types and loadings. Choose what's appropriate to the hunt...I, for one, won't be hunting squirrel with my brother's 30-06.
Any given bullet which passes completely through the target body is NOT "wasted energy". What would be wasted is any effort to ensure that this will never ever happen under any circumstances, if for no other reason than such a round would not be a reliably effective hunting round, and most certainly not one I would rely upon for self-defense.
FlSwampRat
Member
Besides hunting squirrels can you elucidate on your theory that any energy a bullet retains, having passed through the target body, still affects said body in a continuing manner? My contention is a really simple one, once that bullet has exited the target body it ceases to affect that body. Can you somehow refute that?
- Status
