Velocity and Muzzle Energy vs Incapacitation

[mavracer]

there's also biology involved and sometimes the biological factors outweigh all of the terminal ballistic considerations.

Absolutely a 20 or 30% increase in bullet weight or velocity or KE whatever isn't much when you realistically consider humans range of size alone.

 

[CraigC]

Again, use my examples and explain what role energy plays. I've asked several times now and you've dodged the question. That is why I repeat myself.

For example. I have two loadings. One has a 200gr bullet, the other has a 125gr bullet. Which is more effective on deer? If you can't accurately tell me, by your reasoning, that proves that mass is irrelevant when it comes to assessing terminal effect of projectiles.

Great example. Provide the diameter, velocity and construction and we can make some accurate generalizations. Those factors are 100% relevant and I can fully explain why. Calculated energy adds nothing meaningful to the conversation. As I said, my favorite words, we can have a more productive discussion without ever mentioning energy, let alone calculating it.

If you think I'm saying that energy alone can be used to assess the performance of various loads, you haven't been reading a thing I've said.

Repetition is only necessary when the point is repeatedly missed in the first place.

I'm not asking you to use energy to tell the whole story. I'm not asking you to dispel any other single factor. I'm asking you to explain what relevance calculated kinetic energy has to this discussion. We know the roles played by diameter, mass and velocity and construction.

Please explain what relevance energy has to terminal ballistics, in any context. Give an example of how you might use it to compare two cartridges or loads. Not as a concept, "well, energy is the potential to do work". That's as useful as "bullet make holes". I can read a dictionary.

I'll repeat myself again, TKO was not intended to compare smallbores or baseballs. It was solely designed and intended to compare big bore solids, to each other. TKO has relevance and is valid, in that context. Using it for anything else is like comparing the trailering ability and 0-60mph times of F350's to Vettes.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

It was solely designed and intended to compare big bore solids, to each other. TKO has relevance and is valid, in that context.

But that context has nothing to do with killing animals. Nowhere in the equation is the animal, right? It is really nothing but an equation of potential.

 

[CraigC]

But that context has nothing to do with killing animals.

Uh, what???

 

[MachIVshooter]

Not the first time we've hashed this out over a mutli-page thread. Always entertaining!

I'm not going to invest that heavily this go around, not going to be citing and linking Fackler, Courtney, et al.

John has said at least a couple times what is most salient, that KE is a valuable measure of a projectile's potential to do the work it was designed to do. But in and of itself, it is like using Watts without regard for the volts, amps and application.

KE is certainly not a useless value, but as an isolated metric of cartridge performance, it is of little utility if we are not comparing similar rounds. KE shows us that .357 magnum and 10mm Auto have more wounding potential than their .38 special and .40 S&W counterparts because it translates to an ability to drive bullets of the same mass and diameter faster and deeper, or heavier and more expanded bullets to similar depth, etc. KE does not, however, give us a useful metric for comparing the wounding potential of very disparate rounds, such as .500 S&W versus .30-06, which produce similar energies but behave very differently in the real world.

 

[mavracer]

We know the roles played by diameter, mass and velocity and construction.

How though?
You can't discuss the role diameter and velocity play with each other, without discussing the effects KE has on the equation, whether you want to admit it or not.
Stopping momentum faster converts more energy, which is why expanding bullets that go faster create larger stretch cavities.
Kinetic energy conversion to elastic energy.

 

[CraigC]

How though?
You can't discuss the role diameter and velocity play with each other, without discussing the effects KE has on the equation, whether you want to admit it or not.
Stopping momentum faster converts more energy, which is why expanding bullets that go faster create larger stretch cavities.
Kinetic energy conversion to elastic energy.

Sure we can. Why not? We can discuss all day long that a solid at 1400fps produces more tissue damage than one at 1000fps. For example, a 180gr .40 caliber bullet at 1000fps generates 400ft-lbs. Increasing that 100fps to 1100fps increases energy by 20%. Does it make it 20% more effective? No. Does it increase tissue damage or penetration by 20%? Hell no.

Take that same bullet and push it 1400fps. That's an increase of 40% velocity but it nearly doubles energy. Does it make it twice as effective? Not on this planet. Double tissue damage or penetration?

Why do we need to calculate energy which is going to exaggerate the role of velocity? 20% greater energy does not produce 20% greater tissue damage. It sure as hell doesn't produce 20% greater penetration. So what is the point?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

This is not about hunting.
I'll try to simplify it further.
Someone says handgun bullets don't go 2,000 fps (no hunting, no comparison to rifles) they made a generalization.
Then we say 10mm Liberty 60 gr. goes 2,400 fps so there is an exception to that generalization.
And if a temporary cavity (do not get hung up on that term, whatever term) happens at 2,200 (whatever) then a handgun can do that (no hunting, no rifles , stick with me).
Sating a handgun bullets can't do whatever because they doesn't go over 2,000 fps is an inaccurate generalization because we have an exception.

I understand your point.

I'm pointing out that a 10mm 60gr handgun bullet propelled at rifle-like velocity (2200 fps) produces a temporary cavity 4 1/2" in diameter (according to Liberty's marketing claim), which is not rifle-like despite the velocity.

(Liberty's bullet also fragments, peppering soft tissues with small holes, which are then torn open by the subsequent temporary cavity, increasing permanent disruption. However, the problem with handgun bullets that fragment is when hands and arms get in the way.)

 

[Shawn Dodson]

You assume I haven't read it. Like always it goes back to the claim as proof, which doesn't work logically.
So I'll ask once again.
HOW DO YOU ACCURATELY MEASURE THE PERMANENT CAVITY IN SOFT TISSUE?

You tell us.

 

[CraigC]

KE shows us that .357 magnum and 10mm Auto have more wounding potential than their .38 special and .40 S&W counterparts.....

Not really. Or maybe only within a narrow window. I love the .38-40 cartridge and like to turn a cannelure in .40/10mm bullets and push them fast out of rifles.

A 135gr Sierra at 1600fps out of a 24" rifle produces 27% greater energy than a 230gr hardcast at 1100fps out of a 10mm pistol. Which would you choose for prairie dogs and which for bear defense? I can push a 180gr to 1500fps and generate more than either but it's only slightly more effective than the 135gr varmint bomb and is marginal on deer.

It's a useless number. You can completely ignore energy figures in the above comparisons and make more accurate generalizations without even mentioning it.

No, people just cling to energy because it's been preached for so long. Those that still preach it like to imply that those who do not are ignorant and lack understanding. It's just the opposite. I liken it to still believing the earth is flat.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

10mm 60 gr. Liberty Civil Defense at 2,400 fps may merit a disclaimer in that generalization.

Mmmm...not really. Though I will give it an edge on velocity. Mass is important as well, because momentum plays an important factor too.

The issue I have with hydrostatic shock is that even when you do produce the effects, soft tissue is exceptionally elastic.

This introduces even more unpredictability and uncertainty with respect to reliable and reproducible terminal ballistics directly attributable to hydrostatic shock.

If you're passing through critical organs, then it will contribute some, I'm sure, as you're already poking a hole and shredding a path through them. If not, then the effects are much less.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Not really. Or maybe only within a narrow window. I love the .38-40 cartridge and like to turn a cannelure in .40/10mm bullets and push them fast out of rifles.

A 135gr Sierra at 1600fps out of a 24" rifle produces 27% greater energy than a 230gr hardcast at 1100fps out of a 10mm pistol. Which would you choose for prairie dogs and which for bear defense? I can push a 180gr to 1500fps and generate more than either but it's only slightly more effective than the 135gr varmint bomb and is marginal on deer.

It's a useless number. You can completely ignore energy figures in the above comparisons and make more accurate generalizations without even mentioning it.

No, people just cling to energy because it's been preached for so long. Those that still preach it like to imply that those who do not are ignorant and lack understanding. It's just the opposite. I liken it to still believing the earth is flat.

You don't get to just ignore the second half of the sentence (let alone the rest of the post) in order to create a strawman.

 

[Jack19]

Pick one, shoot until the threat stops. Avoid FMJ if your caliber has a chance of expanding. Xtreme variants....meh.
Find out what shoots reliably and accurately from YOUR pistol and don't waste your time agonizing over it.

 

[CraigC]

Okay, where did my post go???

 

[Kleanbore]

Folks, speaking of energy, we're beginning to have more heat than light here..

 

[CraigC]

Folks, speaking of energy, we're beginning to have more heat than light here..

Why was my post deleted?

 

[Kleanbore]

Okay, where did my post go???

Deleted . Argumentative.

 

[Kleanbore]

Folks, let's get back on topic, with constructive discussion.

 

[CraigC]

You don't get to just ignore the second half of the sentence (let alone the rest of the post) in order to create a strawman.

I did not.

Don't you think that maybe energy exaggerates the difference between .38 and .357, .40 and 10mm by multiplying velocity by itself?

 

[Robert]

8 pages, the last of which had to have several posts deleted because y'all can't behave like adults, seems like more than enough for this go around.