Quantcast
  1. Upgrade efforts paused for now. Thanks for your patience. More details in the thread in Tech Support for those who are interested.
    Dismiss Notice

some misconceptions about 357 and 44 in carbines

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by trekker73, Nov 21, 2022.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Varminterror

    Varminterror Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    12,606
    You’re ignoring physics.

    Kinetic energy is simply a scaled product of mass and velocity squared. What you’re ignoring is the fact KE is NOT conserved in real world collisions and is such NOT a good measure of potential for comparisons like this. Momentum is also a product of mass and velocity - and IS conserved in real world collisions.

    What you’re also ignoring, by oversimplifying to common bullet weights - when you increase velocity of a given bullet, you increase its momentum as well as its KE. However, one remains relevant for impact performance, while the other does not.
     
  2. someguy2800

    someguy2800 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2015
    Messages:
    7,494
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Well yes that is one part of it, but the other part of what I am getting at is that energy is not a predictor of the result you will get when impacting a soft and flexible media. Its really not a very useful metric to compare two different projectiles.
     
    CraigC likes this.
  3. Varminterror

    Varminterror Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    12,606
    Exactly - so much to the point that we use conservation of MOMENTUM to calculate Work done in real-world, inelastic collisions. Meaning we measure net momentum change (mass x velocity)in - (mass x velocity)out and then use that to calculate the wasted KE, we subtract that from input KE, and we have Work done. Why do we have to use Momentum as the proxy to determine Work (change in kinetic energy)? Because KE isn’t conserved! So even for measuring change in KE, KE isn’t a useful metric!!!
     
    CraigC likes this.
  4. CraigC

    CraigC Sixgun Nut

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    22,155
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    I did refer to a .30cal rifle and I stand by it.

    I used the .22cal example because the foot pounds are the same. I guess you missed that point.

    I don't know why you think "properly loaded" is some sort of loaded term. The point here is to separate the wrong bullet from the right one, because the bullet is the single most important factor. Your bouncing bullets story is a good example of the wrong one. You've obviously never done much if any hunting with handguns and that pretty much explains it.

    I'm not going to argue that anything has "excessive energy", because that implies that it has any relevance. It doesn't, whatsoever.

    It's comical that you'd use the 19th century buffalo rifle as an example 'for' the energy argument. They got the job done with bullet mass and diameter, not velocity. So thanks for making my point.

    The following is the results from a comprehensive penetration test comparing the .44Mag and .45Colt with heavy bullets. Please note the role that mass plays in penetration. Also note that the deepest penetrator went 25" in undiluted SIMTEST. A .338 rifle with a 225gr bullet went 9". Same as the .45 with the crappy XTP bullet so prone to separation. Sorry but you are wrong. A victim of decades of energy marketing.

    Penetration%20test%20chart.jpg
     
  5. Remington1911

    Remington1911 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2022
    Messages:
    1,227
    Why I said the exact same bullet. I never knew there was 42 grain 223 rounds, you can push 223 to sub sonic speeds. You can also get them screaming to the point the bullet will come apart mid air, it just can't deal with that force. The faster bullet will impact with more energy, and will do more damage to the target. We all know we can push a bullet too slow for it to work its magic, but after it gets to the speed where it will "work" what does more damage a faster one or a slower one. The faster one.
     
    d2wing likes this.
  6. Remington1911

    Remington1911 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2022
    Messages:
    1,227
    You are right I have not done any "hand gun hunting" unless you call shooting things in my barn hunting.

    Your term of "properly loaded" is a very wide open phrase.

    As to the old "buffalo rifle", it is not a buffalo rifle but had a very different use more to killing things with two legs. But yes, I guess you could say thanks for making my point....the mass driven at slower speeds will impact with more energy over one moving at even slower speeds. The faster a given projectile goes the more energy it would put into the target.

    I think you said, (forgive me if I am wrong) but something that the energy impacted on the target is not the most important factor, I think that it is the most important factor. This is where my issue lies.

    On a side note that is likely to get my post nuked.....

    This is just the strange way my circle brain works, if we had an "off topic" section I would explain that people with specific "disorders" think things a little differently. I have a friend that has a son, he has the same issues that I do. He came to his mom and said my ear hurts, she asked him, inside or outside. he looked at her with a puzzle look on his face and left and went outside. He came back and said both. That is also how my mind works....at times. At other times you may say the sky is blue and I will debate you to the end of the earth because there is a cloud in it that is white, so no the sky is not blue, it is blue and white.

    I say all this because I think all this circle talking we are coming at the same thing.
     
    d2wing likes this.
  7. CraigC

    CraigC Sixgun Nut

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    22,155
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    So what do you think "properly loaded" means? Because the intent is, "the right bullet for the job".

    It wasn't the energy that got the job done on the buffalo, with those rifles. It's the mass and diameter. Push the bullets 500fps faster and they won't be any deader. If the bullet exits regardless of velocity, the amount of energy generated, used or wasted in the process is even more irrelevant.
     
  8. d2wing

    d2wing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,676
    Thanks for proving my statement that faster bullets stop faster. I appreciate it.
     
  9. mavracer

    mavracer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,363
    Location:
    wichita
    Well according to my reloading data, chronograph and ballistics app you're gonna screw up the fantastic handling characteristics by scoping my gun for exactly 9 yards of maximum point blank shooting.
    Reminds me of thr time I was talking to my brother years ago when he handed me a half box of leverevelution 30-30s and said they don't shoot worth a dang. I asked him why he was trying to make his 30-30 more like his 308, he was deer in the headlights for about 2 minutes and we changed subjects.
     
  10. d2wing

    d2wing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,676
    Anyway, I have in my hand William Bell's book, "The Wanderings of an Elephant Hunter". In it he explains why shot placement with a modern high velocity cartridge is better than a than the large bore low velocity traditional Elephant guns. I am pretty sure he is right with hundreds of Elephants to his credit. I believe all the militaries of the world came to the same conclusion over 100 years ago. But whatever works for you is fine with me.
     
  11. someguy2800

    someguy2800 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2015
    Messages:
    7,494
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Well to that point, bullets act differently at different velocities. In the context of this thread that is a very important thing to think about because 357 and 44 mag revolver bullets are not designed for 2000+ fps impact velocities. Below is a test I did shooting a 180 grain XTP from a 357 maximum. The bullet on the left was fired into water jugs at like 15 yards with a 2200 fps muzzle velocity and as you can see its a varmint bullet at that speed and gave very little penetration. I don't think it would exit on a broadside shot on a deer. The middle bullet was the same load but with the jugs at 100 yards. Still too fast. The bullet on the right is with the load reduced to about 1900 fps muzzle velocity. So here is a case where if you are looking for penetration, more energy is actually a bad thing. Yes the bullet on the left will impart more energy into the animal, but if that results in not having enough penetration to get the bullet where it needed to go, or failing to exit and leaving no blood trail, then it did not make it more effective. Fleshy tissue is soft and elastic, just putting energy into doesn't kill an animal. Putting holes in their circulatory or respiratory, or nervous systems kills animals. How many thousands of ft lbs of energy are transferred into a deer when they get hit by a car? And yet that does not kill them because the energy is just transferred into their soft tissues, which are elastic and bounce back.

    Same as in Craigs example above with the 300 grain XTP penetrating half the distance of the cast bullets. The reason it doesn't penetrate as well is because it has too much energy for the bullet design and is overexpanding. If you slowed it down 200 fps it would penetrate further. I've seen the same thing shooting coyotes with varmint bullets from a 223. The bullets will positively explode at a 3400 fps impact speed and won't even exit a 50 lb coyote, but at 400 yards they penetrate through and through.

    image.jpg
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2022
  12. mavracer

    mavracer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,363
    Location:
    wichita
    I think you should re-read the book. Bell used the original 175gr 275 Rigby AKA 7x57 loading a load that is a smidge under 2400 fps the big bore 400gr 416 Rigby is right at 2400 fps. Bell continued to use the heavier 175gr loading well after the military's adopted lighter faster spire point bullets with better down range trajectory. Seems humans don't require as much momentum to reach vitals as an elephant.
     
  13. JimCunn

    JimCunn Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2020
    Messages:
    52
    "KE is NOT conserved in real world collisions ".
    True, but TOTAL energy is.

    BTW, why has nobody mentioned that kinetic energy is a scalar while momentum is a vector?
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2022
  14. mavracer

    mavracer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,363
    Location:
    wichita
    You ought to see what a 147gr 9mm XTP does at 350 Legend velocity lol.
     
    someguy2800 likes this.
  15. Picher

    Picher Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,957
    Location:
    Maine
    If I need more power than a handgun, I have a .270 winchester that will kill deer out to over 500 yards. I killed a nearly 1,000 pound bull moose at about 300 yards with it...with only one-shot.
     
  16. Dr T

    Dr T Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,501
    Location:
    Colorado and West Texas
    The only reason I mention this is that it has not been brought up yet:

    The Taylor Knockout Formula: Multiply the mass of the bullet (in grains) by the velocity of the bullet (in feet per second) and its diameter (in inches). Then divide the result by 7000.

    This has had many supporters and critics, and ignores factors such as bullet construction. Since African Rifles and Cartridges was written some time ago (the earliest publication date I found in my brief search was 1948), this same argument has been around for quite a while.

    However, it is still useful as a rule of thumb.
     
    js8588 likes this.
  17. CraigC

    CraigC Sixgun Nut

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    22,155
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    How did I do that?


    He was using high sectional density solids to drill a hole to the brain and only the brain. That was a very specific load with a very specific application. It actually goes against the argument for energy, the bullets worked well because they did not expand and used their high weight to diameter ratio to penetrate deeply. Also please note that currently, the .375's are considered minimum for all dangerous African game.


    In my opinion, TKO is one formula that is actually useful in comparing big bores to each other.
     
  18. someguy2800

    someguy2800 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2015
    Messages:
    7,494
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I can only imagine lol
     
  19. .45Coltguy

    .45Coltguy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2021
    Messages:
    871
    Lordy. Really!? Re-read post #67. Simplicity folks. Hunters been using, with great success, these handgun cartridge lever guns for some time now. Know your firearm and how it shoots with your ammo.
     
    JimCunn likes this.
  20. Risky buisness

    Risky buisness Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    516
    Location:
    Wyoming
    I see some mention of the Taylor knock out scale how is that figured?
    I know Elmer Keith used velocity x weight ÷ 7000 to reach some interesting conclusions regarding a particular cartridges potential. And if you use ' that' particular method, it really ignores the Ft lb issue and gives a pretty telling picture of cartridge preformance.
     
  21. Varminterror

    Varminterror Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    12,606
    TKO is - wait for it - MOMENTUM times bullet diameter…
     
  22. Varminterror

    Varminterror Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    12,606
    Neither of these are actually true.

    Momentum is a vector quantity as it is comprised of the vector of velocity (differing from SPEED by its vector aspect). Since KE is also comprised of the velocity vector, it’s also a vector, but since a squared vector, nobody really gives that any consideration…

    Also - Total energy is not conserved in inelastic collisions. And frankly, energy wasted as heat or sound isn’t terribly pertinent.

    I described the Work formula above. We use conservation of momentum to determine the KE transferred - the work done - because energy is not conserved.
     
  23. .45Coltguy

    .45Coltguy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2021
    Messages:
    871
    Since when did scientific analysts' kill any whitetail deer? All this gobblygoop means not a damn thing to a fella who takes his, lets say his lever action .35 Rem out to the Maine wood thickets and shoots his deer, at say, 90 yards. Think he's calculating all this BS? Nope. Just dragging that dead deer back to the truck. Get over it.
     
  24. JimCunn

    JimCunn Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2020
    Messages:
    52
    "Neither of these are actually true".

    Both of those are actually true.

    "Momentum is a vector quantity as it is comprised of the vector of velocity (differing from SPEED by its vector aspect)".

    True.

    "Since KE is also comprised of the velocity vector, it’s also a vector,"

    False. When the velocity is squared, the product becomes a scalar.

    "but since a squared vector, nobody really gives that any consideration…"

    That's because a squared vector is a scalar.

    "Also - Total energy is not conserved in inelastic collisions".

    Er uh, yes it is. Acoustic and thermal energy count.
     
  25. Risky buisness

    Risky buisness Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    516
    Location:
    Wyoming
    Why bless your heart, I had missed that in the commentary.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice