coltoriginal
member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 14
saturno_v
yes a 45 will meet more wind resistance than a 9mm because of larger cross-section.. if thats what you are trying to say it doesn't matter anyway because we are comparing 45 to 9mm.. its already included in practical application (i have never seen a shooting range in a vacuum). my numbers are not real world accurate to the .0001 because of the unknown range at which rounds were chrono'd. but who cares? variables between ammo in the same box would still have more effect
please explain what you are trying to say there.. it seems you just greatly overcomplicated an explanation of how you can hit something harder with a hammer. no need to say blue is blue or harder is harder
fyi KE=Momentum=Inertia and at point of impact =Force (see po-tay-to vs po-tah-to for clarification)
anyone who has shot anything remotely fluid (i.e. soft clay, water jugs ...) with a high powered rifle knows the effects. Shoot a squirrel with a magnum hunting rifle and i guarantee you 90% of the little guy will literally disappear from that tiny little bullet, while the round itself will pass clean through. what else do you call that?
You do raise a good point however about elastic vs inelastic transference and the dissipated energy due to penetration, However that is one of the minor variables i alluded to in my first post (such as overcoming static friction) that were unknowns.
This is true. Therefore vacuum's are not relevant in anyway to this example.. what are you trying to prove here? the practical application of both as described encompasses wind resistance and the computations are "rough" as i originally said. For that matter, the bullet weights and velocities from the chrono #'s posted also did not happen in a vacuum and therefore the numbers and those derived from them are perfectly accurate and accountable.. again no vacuums anywhere. unless you think there is significantly more wind resistance in one state vs another lets just assume air is all the sameThe real world doesn't happen in a vacuum...
yes a 45 will meet more wind resistance than a 9mm because of larger cross-section.. if thats what you are trying to say it doesn't matter anyway because we are comparing 45 to 9mm.. its already included in practical application (i have never seen a shooting range in a vacuum). my numbers are not real world accurate to the .0001 because of the unknown range at which rounds were chrono'd. but who cares? variables between ammo in the same box would still have more effect
tap that rubber block with a given hammer and measure its movement...then whack him harder with the same hammer...the hitting mass did not change...you increased both momentum and, even more the KE.
please explain what you are trying to say there.. it seems you just greatly overcomplicated an explanation of how you can hit something harder with a hammer. no need to say blue is blue or harder is harder
fyi KE=Momentum=Inertia and at point of impact =Force (see po-tay-to vs po-tah-to for clarification)
Hydrostatic shock has never been proven....you can read some literature by Dr. Martin Fackler, FBI studies and others....
anyone who has shot anything remotely fluid (i.e. soft clay, water jugs ...) with a high powered rifle knows the effects. Shoot a squirrel with a magnum hunting rifle and i guarantee you 90% of the little guy will literally disappear from that tiny little bullet, while the round itself will pass clean through. what else do you call that?
You do raise a good point however about elastic vs inelastic transference and the dissipated energy due to penetration, However that is one of the minor variables i alluded to in my first post (such as overcoming static friction) that were unknowns.
Last edited: