Taylor Knock Out
- Thread starter Shane
- Start date
- Status
Just another method of analyzing the same data.
It's ok for handguns, but one has to remember that it skews the numbers in favor of wider bullets.
I'd rather have a 180 grain .357 hardcast @ 1,400 fps than a 180 grain .45 caliber hardcast @ 1,400 fps for taking down a deer. The TKO formula will tell you that the .45 colt is better simply because it is wider. The 180 grain .45 likely would not penetrate well enough.
Another problem is that it cannot be used with expanding bullets such as JHP's and JSP's.
It's ok for handguns, but one has to remember that it skews the numbers in favor of wider bullets.
I'd rather have a 180 grain .357 hardcast @ 1,400 fps than a 180 grain .45 caliber hardcast @ 1,400 fps for taking down a deer. The TKO formula will tell you that the .45 colt is better simply because it is wider. The 180 grain .45 likely would not penetrate well enough.
Another problem is that it cannot be used with expanding bullets such as JHP's and JSP's.
Au contraire, Kilgore, John Taylor never wrote about a handgun round to my knowledge. He wrote about African Dangerous Game Cartridges and your reply is comparing apples to oranges. Taylor always advocated the longest, heaviest bullet for the caliber. There was no comparisons between 180 g 357 and 180 g 44 caliber. If anything, Taylor would advocate the longest heaviest bullet in either. He was no fan of bullistic tables, neither was Elmer Keith.
Alvin Hammer
Member
Taylor K-O
One of the reasons the Taylor formula is "skewed" towared wider bullets is they leave a bigger wound channel.
The Taylor formala has nothing to do with handguns. It was developed for hunting big game with rifles.
As has already been said - Taylor, Keith, and other successful large game hunters found the biggest bullets penetrated the best. Biggest refers to wide and long. In other words the largest sectional density.
One of the reasons the Taylor formula is "skewed" towared wider bullets is they leave a bigger wound channel.
The Taylor formala has nothing to do with handguns. It was developed for hunting big game with rifles.
As has already been said - Taylor, Keith, and other successful large game hunters found the biggest bullets penetrated the best. Biggest refers to wide and long. In other words the largest sectional density.
BigG,
I know who Taylor is and what he developed the TKO formula for. Shane was asking about applying it to handgun bullets. I pointed out its flaws with regards to handgun bullets. Even gave an example where it was wrong.
Alvin Hammer,
In the above example the .357 will leave a much larger wound channel in total tissue dirupted because it will have a relatively wide, but LONG wound channel that will likely exit. The 180 gr .45 may leave an initially wider wound channel, but it will not be as deep due to a poor sectional density. Thus total wound channel will be smaller. This is an example where the formula is incorrectly skewed to the wider bullet.
Regards,
Kilgor
I know who Taylor is and what he developed the TKO formula for. Shane was asking about applying it to handgun bullets. I pointed out its flaws with regards to handgun bullets. Even gave an example where it was wrong.
Alvin Hammer,
In the above example the .357 will leave a much larger wound channel in total tissue dirupted because it will have a relatively wide, but LONG wound channel that will likely exit. The 180 gr .45 may leave an initially wider wound channel, but it will not be as deep due to a poor sectional density. Thus total wound channel will be smaller. This is an example where the formula is incorrectly skewed to the wider bullet.
Regards,
Kilgor
Alvin Hammer
Member
Kilgore,
You might be right about 180 grain .45 bullets. I carry 230 grain bullets which have had no problem with complete penetration of pigs and deer. I load lead 250 grainers which also have given complete penetration of these animals out of a .45 ACP.
You might be right about 180 grain .45 bullets. I carry 230 grain bullets which have had no problem with complete penetration of pigs and deer. I load lead 250 grainers which also have given complete penetration of these animals out of a .45 ACP.
George,
As usual, good info.
Here's a little more on the Taylor KO.
It was originally a measurement of how long a near-miss on a brain shot elephant would "knock out" the elephant. Pretty difficult to quantify a near-miss. How close does the shot need to be?
Anyway, not a very scientific method. The formula presented was done some time later in an attempt to quantify the empirical evidence and make valid comparisons between calibers. I would venture that there is actually very little relationship between the formula and the results that Taylor originally achieved. It is just another "X x Y X Z = Power" formula.
"bullistic" (I like that one, George
) tables don't kill dangerous game. Long experience (not mine, certainly, but those who have done it) has shown that large caliber, moderate velocities, heavy-for-caliber bullets of good construction is what kills dangerous game.
As usual, good info.
Here's a little more on the Taylor KO.
It was originally a measurement of how long a near-miss on a brain shot elephant would "knock out" the elephant. Pretty difficult to quantify a near-miss. How close does the shot need to be?
Anyway, not a very scientific method. The formula presented was done some time later in an attempt to quantify the empirical evidence and make valid comparisons between calibers. I would venture that there is actually very little relationship between the formula and the results that Taylor originally achieved. It is just another "X x Y X Z = Power" formula.
"bullistic" (I like that one, George
) tables don't kill dangerous game. Long experience (not mine, certainly, but those who have done it) has shown that large caliber, moderate velocities, heavy-for-caliber bullets of good construction is what kills dangerous game.cratz2
Member
I'm not a big fan of any of the easy equations or one shot stop percentages. They all have flaws in my opinion. They all either leave out the type of target, distance shot or poor shooting.
Get a gun you are comfortable with, make absolutely sure it's reliable, take a class mostly to make sure you aren't doing anything really wrong, then practice like the dickens. Make sure you can hit what you want to hit and carry good defensive ammo in it. Boom! You're well protected. 9mm, 10mm, 45ACP even <shudder> 357 SIG and 40 S&W. Or 38, 357, 41 or 44 if you so prefer. Any of them have done their job quite well and will continue to do so well into the future.
Get a gun you are comfortable with, make absolutely sure it's reliable, take a class mostly to make sure you aren't doing anything really wrong, then practice like the dickens. Make sure you can hit what you want to hit and carry good defensive ammo in it. Boom! You're well protected. 9mm, 10mm, 45ACP even <shudder> 357 SIG and 40 S&W. Or 38, 357, 41 or 44 if you so prefer. Any of them have done their job quite well and will continue to do so well into the future.
On the one hand, we have a formula made up by a poacher a hundred years ago in an attempt to quantify his observations regarding the effects of near misses while attempting elephant brain shots with a large bore rifle.
On the other hand, we have the effectiveness of modern handgun ammo.
A reasonable person might make the assumption these two things are completely unrelated--I certainly would.
By the way, can anyone explain what a TKO is? In other words, if I say a projectile has a TKO value of 1, what does that say about that projectile?
On the other hand, we have the effectiveness of modern handgun ammo.
A reasonable person might make the assumption these two things are completely unrelated--I certainly would.
By the way, can anyone explain what a TKO is? In other words, if I say a projectile has a TKO value of 1, what does that say about that projectile?
JohnKSa: That's why I said there was no comparison. Taylor had no "formula" that he published. He had a seat of the pants table of relative values of cartridges he had tried in shooting elephants and based his results on how long a pachyderm would be stunned if he missed the brain slightly, as Scott mentioned. The table was not exhaustive but had a lot of gaps. The 600 NE had 150 TKO value and 256 Mannlicher had 13.5 TKO.
The table is worthless without the narrative that accompanies it, however. The narrative indicates that the longest heaviest bullets per caliber at moderate velocity had much more TKO than a lighter faster load.
A TKO value of 1 would be worthless for stunning elephants.
Some slide rule whiz (humor, no flames please) got the idea that you could compare this empirical testing data to ballistic charts. Tain't so, imho. In fact, that's why I dubbed published velocity-energy data as bullistics. All it does is provide grist for endless conversation on how one cartridge is "just as good" as another.
Hence, Kilgor, 9mm vs. 45 Auto. OK, 357 vs 45 Auto. Taylor used factory ammo because he did not trust reloaded ammo (Ha!)and would never compare a 180g 45 vs a 180g 357. He would get the longest heaviest 45 and use that.
The table is worthless without the narrative that accompanies it, however. The narrative indicates that the longest heaviest bullets per caliber at moderate velocity had much more TKO than a lighter faster load.
A TKO value of 1 would be worthless for stunning elephants.
Some slide rule whiz
(humor, no flames please) got the idea that you could compare this empirical testing data to ballistic charts. Tain't so, imho. In fact, that's why I dubbed published velocity-energy data as bullistics. All it does is provide grist for endless conversation on how one cartridge is "just as good" as another.Hence, Kilgor, 9mm vs. 45 Auto. OK, 357 vs 45 Auto. Taylor used factory ammo because he did not trust reloaded ammo (Ha!)and would never compare a 180g 45 vs a 180g 357. He would get the longest heaviest 45 and use that.
BigG,
I've not said anything comparing any cartridges. I pointed out a situation in which the formula gave false results. You apparently agree with what I said because you have said (3 times now) that Taylor would espouse long, heavy for caliber bullets and you appear to agree with him. That's great. I'm glad he and you and I all agree that long, heavy for caliber bullets are best for hunting with nonexpanding ammo. However, the fact remains that the question posed to start this thread was how useful is the TKO formula in comparing handgun cartridges. Instead of just saying it's not good for that purpose I provided an EXAMPLE of when the formula gave FALSE results and pointed out that it also could not take into account expanding bullets.
I am done explaining this to you. If you haven't got it by now, then you are just looking to be an argumentative ***hole. (humor, no flames please)
I've not said anything comparing any cartridges. I pointed out a situation in which the formula gave false results. You apparently agree with what I said because you have said (3 times now) that Taylor would espouse long, heavy for caliber bullets and you appear to agree with him. That's great. I'm glad he and you and I all agree that long, heavy for caliber bullets are best for hunting with nonexpanding ammo. However, the fact remains that the question posed to start this thread was how useful is the TKO formula in comparing handgun cartridges. Instead of just saying it's not good for that purpose I provided an EXAMPLE of when the formula gave FALSE results and pointed out that it also could not take into account expanding bullets.
I am done explaining this to you. If you haven't got it by now, then you are just looking to be an argumentative ***hole.
(humor, no flames please)happy old sailor
Member
i sure like this thread. i dont think any formula will ever be devised to absolutely prove that one of this or that is the best. too many variables, then throw in a box of personal preferances and what ya got, another big long discussion. fun, but...
i can only tell you what i prefer. big, heavy, roundish nosed lead bullets with the big flat place in front. real game getters.
for social ocassions, i prefer the G17 with 20 rounds of pure hell hollowpoints in it.
i would prefer my 657 in crossdraw for all time, but sometimes the NAA mini is all that can be managed do i feel underarmed, yep. just not disarmed.
by formula or ballistic sheets, these are probably a washout, but in my tiny mind, they work for what they were designed for and i have considerable faith in them.
dont miss is the best approach.
i can only tell you what i prefer. big, heavy, roundish nosed lead bullets with the big flat place in front. real game getters.
for social ocassions, i prefer the G17 with 20 rounds of pure hell hollowpoints in it.
i would prefer my 657 in crossdraw for all time, but sometimes the NAA mini is all that can be managed do i feel underarmed, yep. just not disarmed.
by formula or ballistic sheets, these are probably a washout, but in my tiny mind, they work for what they were designed for and i have considerable faith in them.
dont miss is the best approach.
We do agree except for the fact that there ain't no Taylor formula. The guy who came up with the mathematical model should call it, for example, the "Joe Blow Formula" instead of trying to put it on John Taylor who gave a seat of the pants or subjective rating to actual performance.
If you're talking about handguns you shoul d look at the Hatcher formula. Actually he had two. The first was energy based but that didn't conform to the real world so he developed the second based on momentum which did agree with the real world -- bullet wt x area x velocity. But all of these type formulas are approximate not exact. The John Taylor formulas are often repeated by those who don't know his definitions ,he was talking about kncking out an elephant in case you missed the brain. This may not translate to other animals and other shots.
Chris Pinkleton
Member
Once upon a time, I remember someone on TFL pointing out that according to the Taylor formula, a thrown baseball beats a .45ACP by a wdie margin. No laws against concealed baseballs, are there?
IMO, TKO values are about as useful as OSS "percentages." That is to say, they are totally useless.
IMO, TKO values are about as useful as OSS "percentages." That is to say, they are totally useless.
That makes sense. A baseball has HUGE diameter compared to a bullet, HUGE mass, but goes slow (90 MPH average for a major league pitcher). I think if you put that into the equation it WOULD give a higher TKO value than a .45 ACP, simply because two variables have huge values for a baseball. I agree, based on this the TKO sounds useless.
My question about defining a single TKO was to point out that the quantity is purely made up.
One can explain what a single unit of momentum, energy, velocity or mass is. One can even explain exactly what quality of a projectile is defined by these quantities.
But, what is a single unit of TKO and what quality of a projectile does it define?
Answer (as already pointed out by others...) it doesn't define any particular quality of a projectile, and any attempt to make sense of what a unit of TKO might be is doomed to failure.
One can explain what a single unit of momentum, energy, velocity or mass is. One can even explain exactly what quality of a projectile is defined by these quantities.
But, what is a single unit of TKO and what quality of a projectile does it define?
Answer (as already pointed out by others...) it doesn't define any particular quality of a projectile, and any attempt to make sense of what a unit of TKO might be is doomed to failure.
blades67
Member
It's just useless.
KPersimmon
Member
<<<I'm seeing some sites refer to the Taylor Knockout Index:
(bullet weight * Caliber * velocity) / 7000
What do you think of this statistic, does it give any useful info or is it just useless.>>>>
I agree that the "Taylor Knockout Index" is entirely, completely useless.
Take the example of a 5-ounce (2200 grain) baseball of 2.875" diameter thrown at 100 miles per hour (147 fps.):
2200 * 2.875 * 147 / 7000 = 133 (rounded up) TKO
Now look at a .458 Win Mag with a 500 grain bullet travelling at 1870 fps:
500 * 0.458 * 1870 / 7000 = 61 (rounded) TKO
So, if the Taylor values are valid, then the thrown baseball would be over twice as effective as a .458 Magnum.
See anything wrong here?????
(bullet weight * Caliber * velocity) / 7000
What do you think of this statistic, does it give any useful info or is it just useless.>>>>
I agree that the "Taylor Knockout Index" is entirely, completely useless.
Take the example of a 5-ounce (2200 grain) baseball of 2.875" diameter thrown at 100 miles per hour (147 fps.):
2200 * 2.875 * 147 / 7000 = 133 (rounded up) TKO
Now look at a .458 Win Mag with a 500 grain bullet travelling at 1870 fps:
500 * 0.458 * 1870 / 7000 = 61 (rounded) TKO
So, if the Taylor values are valid, then the thrown baseball would be over twice as effective as a .458 Magnum.
See anything wrong here?????
Gmac
Member
Baseballs ain't bullets and apples ain't oranges
- Status
