A Survey of Transitional Kinetic Energy Part 1

mr glo · #1 04-13-2012, 12:36 PM

I hope this paper opens a few eyes. It will no doubt be provocative. But most importantly, I hope it is informative.

I wish not to engage in contentious red herrings like translation, arrows, BTUs or punching holes in steel. No one wants to waste their time. If you vehemently disagree with me, please just respond with a phrase such as, “We will have to agree to disagree.” I think that is the most civil way to respond. Anything personally directed at me such as those on a few other post will be met with silents.

Other than that I expect to be challenged. I will do my best to respond to all questions directed to me and give you straight forward answers.

Please forgive me for any misspelling. I am very dyslexic. I did the best I could to edit and proof read the paper.

Thanks much, Greg

Part 2 here A Survey of Transitional Kinetic Energy Part 2

NOTE: This thread contains the attached paper. Due to the restrictions on file size I had to spread this work over two threads.

Saskshooter · #2 04-13-2012, 05:37 PM

Well, I'll take a stab at it.

Quote:

Well, I hope we can all finally agree that translational kinetic energy (aka kinetic energy) is the measurement we as hunters and shooters use for the energy of an impacting bullet. I'm not asking you to like it or use it. Just to accept it as scientific fact.

Nope. Any formula that has variables based on measurements done in ballistic gelatin, and also contains a variable you call id, which seems to me to be a number you pulled out of your .... ahhh.... head, is going to have serious limitations.

Quote:

I think it's time we all stop arguing about it translational kinetic energy. I hope this finally puts to rest the translational kinetic energy is a marketing ploy, its for heavy slow moving bullets to compete with small fast moving bullet, it's momentum with half more velocity, it has noting to do with “killing power” and any other phrase you can think up.

I'm sorry, but I don't even know what that means.

Quote:

Pseudo science is to the experimentation and observations first then make the work and hypothesis fit the experiment and observations.

Agreed.

Quote:

I understand that drawings of blocks of ordnance gelatin makes not a game animal let alone a real life event. But you must admit we have to start some where. A controlled experiment must be done first to rule out any extemporaneous variables.

Without ruling out those extemporaneous variables, your results are meaningless to any real life events.

Quote:

Finally, given the information contained here, specifically that information contained in the remaining 14 drawings by Dr. M. Fackler, I should be able to calculate a fatal wound for any game animal weight based on temporary wound channel volume.

Nope.

Shawn Crea · #3 04-13-2012, 06:10 PM

I haven't made it all the way through mr glo, but in your first file you have:

'E_t = m ∙ g ∙ 1 ∙ v ∙ t restated to isolate the variables
g_c 2

E_t = m ∙ g ∙ v ∙ t
g_c'

Where did the 1/2 go? Is it a mis-type, or was it accounted for later?

mr glo · #4 04-13-2012, 07:21 PM

The 1/2 is removed as it is the average velocity from z. No need to have it there when isolating variables for velocity. Its only an avarage of v1 and v2 which is the a in F =ma

Shawn Crea · #5 04-13-2012, 07:43 PM

So you accounted for it in the subsequent formulas? Just trying to make it followable, and it's not readily apparent when you drop it without any explanation in your paper.

mr glo · #6 04-13-2012, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn Crea

So you accounted for it in the subsequent formulas? Just trying to make it followable, and it's not readily apparent when you drop it without any explanation in your paper.

I understand.

There are about twenty steps from F = ma to Et = dF. For reasons of time and space I skipped a few of the interim processes.

Shawn Crea · #7 04-13-2012, 08:45 PM

OK, so F=ma=mv^2/r=mv^2/2=wz. All interchangeable for F, in your formulas. Correct?

mr glo · #8 04-14-2012, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn Crea

OK, so F=ma=mv^2/r=mv^2/2=wz. All interchangeable for F, in your formulas. Correct?

Not correct, for two reasons.

One, F = ma is dimensionless. As is Huygens work. We as hunters and shooters need a dimension. dF (foot-pound force) is a measurement reflecting dimensions. F is no more interchangeable then Et. Et may be equal to dF but Et is not the same. From a theoretical or mathematical point of view F is equal to a lot of things. Again, as an application, F is not the same as dF.

The second reason is my formulea is Fm/d. It is a measurement. F does not equal Fm/d. And for the user I use the dimensionally incorrect value so as not to be confused with other “killing power” values; namely momentum.

You are asking great questions, thanks.

MZ5 · #9 04-14-2012, 07:55 AM

You'll likely have to elaborate more on your assertion of F = ma being dimensionless. Most people will counter that mass, length, and time are basic dimensions. The specific units used are arbitrary, but the dimensions themselves represent fundamental quantities. Thus, most will say that force (F) in the equation above has the basic dimensions of mass, length, and time. See how/why more elaboration will be needed?

mr glo · #10 04-14-2012, 12:37 PM

That's a great challenge MZ5. I got it backwards. I transposed the word dimension with word measure. Thank you for finding that mistake. I owe you one.

But back to the larger point. I'm going to elaborate using dimension and measure, definitionally correct.

Again from an earlier post.

It's more like a trick question. It's like asking someone to describe the taste of salt. Of course they are going to say, “salty”. F = ma is measureless because it is. Have you ever heard anyone say, “the acceleration of gravity on earth is F = ma”.

No, you would laugh at them.

But technically, from a theoretical point view that would be a correct answer. What people do is automatically attribute measures to F = ma and use it as another name; like the acceleration of gravity. Here on earth it's 32.1739ft/s^2:
F = ma = acceleration of gravity = 32.1739ft/s^2

As an example, here are some instances of things in our normal life without measures. Try the test. Go ahead and automatically attribute the measurements you think are correct. I'm gonna throw in a curve ball.

How fast does your new 2012 Mustang GT with the 5.0 liter engine go? It goes 130.
How much torque does it have? It's got 511.
So what's its highway mileage? About 25.

The answers:
130 miles per hour
511 Newton meters
25 miles per gallon

The curve ball is the 511 Newton meters. If you were already using Imperial units of measure then you did well. I could have just as easily used SI units of measure. If you said 511 foot pound force, you would have been wrong. 511 Newton meters is equal to 377 foot-pound force.

Remember math is a language of assumptions. Examples:
2 x (1 +2). Can you remember back to pre-algebra in 9th grade? Can you tell me where the assumption is? It is in front of the quantity (1 +2 ). It is assumed you know it is 1(1 +2) or 1 times the quantity of (1 +2). How about this one 2 -1 = 1? Is that addition or subtraction? If you answered subtraction you would be wrong. That's the crap the taught you in elementary school. That was addition. I added a positive 2 to a negative 1. Can you see where the assumption was? Yep, it was the positive sign in front of the 2. I could have just as well written this and it would be mathematically correct; +2 -1 = 1. Or for that matter -1 +2 = 1.

Be carfare assuming things. If you assume F = ma has measurements you would be wrong. F = ma is the Second Axiom. Its a statement not an equation.

Yes, mass (m), length (d), and time (t) are basic dimensions. The pounds mass (lbm), foot (ft) and second (s) are units of measure.

I hope that helps and sorry for the mix up.

P.S. I know I'm going to get into trouble for implying F = ma is not an equation. It is, but from the big picture I'm trying to convey it as a rule. The rule has no units of measure within it. F = ma must be restated to work as an equation for translational kinetic energy. F = Et as ma = lbf. But F is not Et and ma is not ft-lbf. Capiche

MZ5 · #11 04-14-2012, 07:58 PM

I've been busy today, but had a reply on-screen which I see is now unnecessary. Thanks for the update/elaboration; definitional things like that need to be straightened out before engaging in a significant discussion. Otherwise, assumptions will have us talking past one another. Using math will preclude or correct most incorrect assumptions, as it is a language largely devoid thereof (or at least of well-defined and agreed-upon assumptions), but we must take great care to be complete in our associated explanations, lest our own potentially unusual assumptions lead our readers astray.

broom_jm · #12 04-15-2012, 05:50 AM

Greg,

I confess that I have not read all of the papers you submitted for our perusal. I commend you for the effort and commitment you have made toward illustrating and defending your thesis. What's more, I feel your work may be a better comparative analysis tool than any other formula or measure we, as hunters, have utilized to explain terminal ballistics in the past.

I need an honest answer from you, though: Are you a big game hunter? How many head of big game have you harvested and which cartridge(s) have you used to kill big game animals? Have you used small and large diameter bullets to hunt and kill big game; expanding, solid and hard cast bullets? How many of each?

I am not comfortable with some of the assertions you make, although I fully understand the necessity for you to present them as authoritative. You can't argue effectively if you offer up your conclusions as "suggestions" rather than facts. I am more comfortable with F=ma as a principle of physics than as a "statement". When your entire premise is predicated on accepting this basic equation as something other than an equation, you are going to lose most of your audience.

When it's all said and done, your work is another attempt to quantify terminal ballistics; nothing more, nothing less. I think your efforts have merit and might show an improvement over the already established formulas hunters use to evaluate the cartridges and bullets they choose. Where your theories meet up with reality, they face the same hurdles that limit all of the other formulas hunters have used for decades, whether it be ft/lbs of energy, TKO factor, Winchester CXP scale or any other attempt at measuring terminal performance.

In the field, there are too many variables to account for and too few bullets are recovered to establish statistical probability. I think even you would agree that ballistic gelatin is not hide or bone, and only a reasonable approximation of actual flesh, correct? You must concede that shooting into a constant medium at a known distance is a poor substitute for shooting into a dynamic medium at ever-varying distances...right?

I'm afraid I must emphatically insist that you acknowledge testing done in ballistic gelatin as being irrelevant to the matter at hand; big game animals have hides of varying "toughness" and bones of varying mass and density while gelatin lacks both. Your formula simply does not account for this, and as such, has little or no relevance to what happens when a bullet hits a deer, elk, bear, hog or moose.

Given that all of your efforts are directed at predicting what a projectile will do when it strikes ballistic gelatin, and given that ballistic gelatin is simply NOT a suitable medium for testing the behavior of a bullet when it strikes a big game animal, I submit that your assertions are inaccurate and inconclusive.

(OK...I'm playing the devil's advocate a little bit, but you must anticipate this. In fact, you need to have some rather "tough skin" yourself!

)

In all seriousness, and with all due respect, I must ultimately reject your conclusions and your formula as not being germane to the discussion of terminal ballistics, as pertains to the hunting of big game. Furthermore, I am glad to find that you haven't "solved" this mystery! The truth is that bullets kill things for a variety of reasons, NOT simply because of the volume of temporary wound channel created. At best, your study is relevant for expanding point bullets that do not encounter bone as they pass through an animal. For all intents and purposes, hunters would be well-advised to continue evaluating the performance of big game cartridges and bullets as they have for generations; evaluating real life results from many heads of game harvested. When in doubt, carry more gun than you need.

P.S. You feel Wakeman has an "anti-gun agenda"? Where'd you get that??

mr glo · #13 04-15-2012, 09:35 AM

Hi broom, keep the challenges coming.

“I confess that I have not read all of the papers you submitted for our perusal. I commend you for the effort and commitment you have made toward illustrating and defending your thesis. What's more, I feel your work may be a better comparative analysis tool than any other formula or measure we, as hunters, have utilized to explain terminal ballistics in the past.”
Thank you. My formula at this time and always has been comparative analysis tool.

“I need an honest answer from you, though: Are you a big game hunter? How many head of big game have you harvested and which cartridge(s) have you used to kill big game animals? Have you used small and large diameter bullets to hunt and kill big game; expanding, solid and hard cast bullets? How many of each?”
Are you asking if I have taken several spices of big game from around the world using plus 40 cal. Rifles. Answer no. I have taken several head of small black tail when I was in the service. I used my 12ga mossberg pump with 1 once slugs. Went elk hunting once. Out of 8 hunters as I remember, 3 Elk and 1 mulie were taken. I drew down on an immature bull with fork horns and brow tines. I carries my post 64 M70 in '06. I have since past that rifle down to my daughter. I was primary a bird hunter. I have COPD now and prevents me from hunting.

“I am not comfortable with some of the assertions you make, although I fully understand the necessity for you to present them as authoritative. You can't argue effectively if you offer up your conclusions as "suggestions" rather than facts. I am more comfortable with F=ma as a principle of physics than as a "statement". When your entire premise is predicated on accepting this basic equation as something other than an equation, you are going to lose most of your audience.”
I'm not trying to sell anything, so I'm not to worried about how many people I reach. The assertion and proof as provided in my paper is that Translational kinetic energy is real ans is a fact. I showed that momentum has nothing to do with a wound channel. Engineers and doctors have set the stage for this argument by one, using ordnance gelatin at a specific mixture to be the exactly modulus of elasticity for human tissue and two, claimed momentum is the mechanism for a wound channel. Again, all of this was proven 272 years ago.

“When it's all said and done, your work is another attempt to quantify terminal ballistics; nothing more, nothing less. I think your efforts have merit and might show an improvement over the already established formulas hunters use to evaluate the cartridges and bullets they choose. Where your theories meet up with reality, they face the same hurdles that limit all of the other formulas hunters have used for decades, whether it be ft/lbs of energy, TKO factor, Winchester CXP scale or any other attempt at measuring terminal performance.”
Agreed. What did I imply? I will say this. Any formula that is based in momentum is impotent; fales to be exact.

“In the field, there are too many variables to account for and too few bullets are recovered to establish statistical probability. I think even you would agree that ballistic gelatin is not hide or bone, and only a reasonable approximation of actual flesh, correct? You must concede that shooting into a constant medium at a known distance is a poor substitute for shooting into a dynamic medium at ever-varying distances...right?”
Sentence 1: I disagree. That's a non sequitur to the argument and my paper. The experimentation has not yet been done in the field.
Sentence 2: Agreed whole-heartledly but I didn't set up the parameters. In the case of my paper it was a doctor who was a colonel in the US Army.
Sentence 3: No argument there. I totally agree.

“I'm afraid I must emphatically insist that you acknowledge testing done in ballistic gelatin as being irrelevant to the matter at hand; big game animals have hides of varying "toughness" and bones of varying mass and density while gelatin lacks both. Your formula simply does not account for this, and as such, has little or no relevance to what happens when a bullet hits a deer, elk, bear, hog or moose.”
Sentence 1: No argument there. I totally agree. But again, I didn't set up the parameters. In the case of my paper it was done by Dr. Feckler.
Sentence 2: I totally agree. If you are a big game hunter would you like to be part of a study that does this work? It has not been done yet. With all the hunters we have here at this forum I think it could be done. PM me if you are interested. Lets be part of the solution not the problem.

“Given that all of your efforts are directed at predicting what a projectile will do when it strikes ballistic gelatin, and given that ballistic gelatin is simply NOT a suitable medium for testing the behavior of a bullet when it strikes a big game animal, I submit that your assertions are inaccurate and inconclusive.”
My hypothesis is sound, born in science and not impeached by my paper but rather soundly up held.

“(OK...I'm playing the devil's advocate a little bit, but you must anticipate this. In fact, you need to have some rather "tough skin" yourself! )”
I've been at this for over 20 years. Not to worry. You are great.

“In all seriousness, and with all due respect, I must ultimately reject your conclusions and your formula as not being germane to the discussion of terminal ballistics, as pertains to the hunting of big game. Furthermore, I am glad to find that you haven't "solved" this mystery! The truth is that bullets kill things for a variety of reasons, NOT simply because of the volume of temporary wound channel created. At best, your study is relevant for expanding point bullets that do not encounter bone as they pass through an animal. For all intents and purposes, hunters would be well-advised to continue evaluating the performance of big game cartridges and bullets as they have for generations; evaluating real life results from many heads of game harvested. When in doubt, carry more gun than you need.”Your paragraph has two competing thoughts. No wounder you reject my conclusion. One my paper is to show that based on Dr. Feckler's work Mr. R Wakeman is not only totally wrong but reckless for what he espouses. Two is that I have a hypothesis. It was tested right along with Mr. R. Wakeman's assertions. His failed miserably and my hypothesis held water to a .946 correlation, using his ridiculous sampling.

“P.S. You feel Wakeman has an "anti-gun agenda"? Where'd you get that??”
I don't know Mr. R. Wakeman. But anybody could bloviate in his manner, implied and I inferred him to be anti-gun. If he is the same fellow that runs the web site mainly about black power hunting, then I have now idea whats on his mind. Maybe he feel slighted because he mistakenly think translational kinetic energy was created to put down black power hunting. If he new what translational kinetic energy was he would never have written the paper (if it's the same guy). Furthermore if he knew about my formula he would find that IPF up holds his 19th Century weaponry for hunting. On the side I'm non to happy with Chuck Hawks for supporting Mr. R. Wakemans paper on his web site.

Shawn Crea · #14 04-15-2012, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr glo

Lets be part of the solution not the problem.

From my perspective, and probably many others, what problem? I raised this issue earlier, but will restate it a bit differently. I already know what works for me, with the knowledge gained through mentoring and hunting experience, without ever having to know a formula value such as TKO, KE, IPF, etc, to guide my choices. Now, I HAVE used SD, BC, and V to help choose components. SD can be used as a rudimentary indicator of 'killing power', as can V, but neither can be taken alone to predict anything reliably.

You are trying to put all these factors - and more - into a formula to predict terminal performance more reliably than the predictors we have today. You've obviously put a lot of effort into it. However, whatever the formula spits out isn't going to change my mind in what I use, although I might find it interesting. You may argue that's my failing, not yours!

If my assumption is correct that your work is not going to affect a whole lot of people's choices, who is your audience? New hunters, with no mentors, who have no idea where to begin? Possibly useful, if you can sound more credible than the marketing hype of the manufacturers. As well, could be useful to counteract bad mentoring (such as '...the 6mm shoots flat, out to 1000 yards...' - type of stuff)?

Again, I wish you success mr glo.

broom_jm · #15 04-15-2012, 05:38 PM

Shawn beat me to it, but this discussion boils down to something Bandit often brings up concerning the 6.5 Creedmoor:

This is a "solution", in search of a problem.

In the same breath, I will admit that IF you can boil your formula down to something simple enough for average hunters to digest, and you can show a ~95% success rate in predicting how well a bullet will perform, you might be espousing something that will catch on.

What Shawn is so adroitly pointing out is that experienced big game hunters, and those we mentor, do not need a formula to know what works. We have harvested a variety, and an abundance, of game animals. Those we haven't harvested, we have read about from sources we trust who have done the (literal) "dirty work" of figuring out just how well a bullet worked in killing a big game animal, and why. Experienced hunters know what they need to know through physical and anecdotal evidence...they have no need of theories. I am willing to bet that 95% of hunters can not state the Taylor Knock-Out formula and have no idea what the result of that formula would be for their rifle.

What we know is that bullets of a certain diameter and weight, traveling at a certain velocity, impacting where we aimed and at a reasonable distance are known to be consistently lethal and humane. These numbers are different for a huge variety of cartridges and have absolutely NOTHING to do with ballistic gelatin. Some knowledge is gleaned from textbooks in the world of academia. The knowledge hunters need is passed on from generation to generation, sitting around a campfire or reading musty old books by men who have been there and done that.

I don't pen this as an indictment, but if you have taken a few head of blacktail deer with a shotgun firing slugs, I can see why you are passionate about the study you have done. I hope the IPF scale you're working on gets some notice and that it helps future generations of hunters have a better understanding of why a bullet kills. Maybe it will even help to predict if a new cartridge/bullet would be suitable for hunting certain types of game. I wouldn't hold my breath though, if I were you. I think you'll find that hunters will always favor real-world results over laboratory testing, regardless of the correlation factor. I am glad for this, to tell you the truth.

Saskshooter · #16 04-15-2012, 06:43 PM

The Taylor Knock -Out formula, and Ed Matunas' Optimum Game Weight formula are both deeply flawed, yet both are actually legitimate ways of "thinking" about the issue of cartridge and bullet effectiveness on game. They are both occasionally useful within limited circumstances. From the understanding I have of this IPF formula, it seems to be at least as deeply flawed in terms of real life predictions as the others. It may, however, be another theoretical way of thinking about the issues that has at least as much legitimacy as they have.

But as others have asked, my question is also, what is the point, exactly, of trying to make the correlations being made? As a hunter, I am mostly indifferent to the theory in this thread, as I am mostly indifferent to the similar predictive efforts of Taylor and Matunas. I just don't see it as being important to my real life hunting because of the flaws that I believe exist in some of the variables used in the calculations, and the complete failure of all three systems to include what I believe are profoundly important variables. My personal hunting experience makes me believe that some of those other important variables are simply not quantifiable, with the result that all attempts to reduce killing game animals to mathematical calculations are doomed.

raptor5618 · #17 04-16-2012, 11:48 AM

I know I am going to regret commenting but I felt that some observations from the peanut gallery needed to be interjected. I have no idea if this hypothesis or theory will lead to the say all when selecting a bullet to kill big game. I think the points about the differences between BJ and real world performance is pretty significant however, I think that with enough data some correlations can be made.

Again I am not saying that this paper gets even a mm closer to a mathematical model that can predict bullet performance but should this or some study in the future come up with a way to compare bullets it very well could be more important than mentoring. While I agree years of experience helps formulate a concept of a concept of what works best I think that it is unlikely that any one person has shot enough animals with enough different calibers and bullets to establish anything other than just an opinion on what he has used. I catch most bass on minnows, blue rapallas and black worms. But that is what I use 99% of the time.

Secondly, we use lots of specific calculations when selecting a bullet or caliber. I bought a 243 because of several articles talking about how it had the ideal SD for killing deer. In my view the articles were correct. But who has not heard you need at least 1000 pounds of energy to kill a deer so you use that number to look through the ballistic tables. If 1000 is good more has to be better.

I may be the exception but I think not. I think there are lots of people who when they select which gun and bullet to use for the type of game they are going to hunt look at a lot of hard fast data in making their decision. I am not saying they use that exclusively but I would guess that even saskshooter has used some direct points of comparison.

Do I think this is the road to go down in order to get fame and fortune, **** no. I do think that any attempt to refine our understanding of how something works has some value. The value of this will be determined in the future.

I have only read the parts quoted here so forgive me if I am off base MR Glo but I do believe that putting things in terms of ending the argument and other things such as characterizing the intentions of others is not helpful to your paper. The point of your paper is to present your view point and those who disagree are not arguing. To me arguing and disagreeing are not the same thing. I think explaining why your calculations more accurately reflect reality or the terminal characteristics of a bullet give an affirmative statement but does not say any view but mine is wrong or an argument.

I have not read more than the quotes but I think that some of your writing style to me sounds like a crack-pot claiming to know about how something works. Yet from reading some of the technical parts from earlier posts and your replies it is clear that you are extremely well informed and knowledgeable about this topic. Not wanting to be critical but do you think that the presentation would be better taken if perhaps you took some help from your father who as you say is well accomplished and very skilled technical writer.

I have only tipped my toe into this whole thing so I hope I have not offended anyone with comments that are off base.

mr glo · #18 04-16-2012, 02:12 PM

Hi Raptor, since you offered your suggestions to me, I figure I'd respond.

Before I comment let me say this, you didn't offend me.

Let me touch on a few of your observations.

I wish my dad could have worked on this paper with me. However he past away several years ago and had Alzheimer’s as well. By 1994 he could no longer write.

Somehow this paper has become synonymous with a formula for the actual killing power of game animals in the field. Nothing could be further from the truth. The paper is a rebuttal to Mr. R. Wakeman. I showed that momentum and TKO had nothing to do with a wound channel, specifically a permeation wound channel. I showed that kinetic energy has a high degree of correlation to the several types of wound channels. This also showed the short comings with kinetic energy. I showed that my IPF had a near perfect correlation to a temporary wound channel.

Why did I write the paper. Because someone posted a link to Mr. R Wakeman's paper as source to look to, for (as I remember) bullet penetration. Unfortunately, Mr. R Wakeman's paper was nothing of the sort.

So, because of this, I was more than glad to jump right in the pool.

Here is probably where folks have inferred that my paper implied “the actual killing power of game animals in the field”. I wrote something to the effect that with the data available to me, by Mr. Wakeman, I have concluded that I can extend my hypothesis to game animal weight (pound for pound).

If you or others have inferred that my IPF will translate to actual field result by my other posts, then yes you would be correct. But not by the paper.

Ultimately my IPF is for the comparison of, same cartridge with different bullets. It can be use in the broader sense of cartridge to cartridge. Then to empirical data we all have, about what it takes to kill a game animal. Finally what we know about the field and applied that back to a bullet to bullet comparison within the same cartridge or cartridge to cartridge comparison.

I certainly support you and all the other hunters. I also respect peoples feeling to not want to be told what to use when hunting. I would guess without knowing that most of the folks here that hunt, are accomplished. If my writing style is a little too rough and I have offended any one, I apologize. I am very passionate about this subject. I think the math I provided in the paper is all the proof needed for my assertions.

I extend my thanks to you and others that have made such positive and constructive comments.

Shawn Crea · #19 04-16-2012, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raptor5618

I have only tipped my toe into this whole thing so I hope I have not offended anyone with comments that are off base.

I'm not offended. If all we had to deal with was this type of polite discussion and reason, that would be great (well, other than the 'peanut gallery' comment).

Quote:

Originally Posted by raptor5618

I bought a 243 because of several articles talking about how it had the ideal SD for killing deer. In my view the articles were correct.

If SD was THE defining factor, you might have picked anything from 224 caliber to .458 caliber.

Quote:

Originally Posted by raptor5618

Do I think this is the road to go down in order to get fame and fortune, **** no. I do think that any attempt to refine our understanding of how something works has some value. The value of this will be determined in the future.

I agree. If mr glo can present his information in a clear manner, understandable in terms by the vast majority of hunters, and it's valid and useful, everybody wins.

Shawn Crea · #20 04-16-2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr glo

Somehow this paper has become synonymous with a formula for the actual killing power of game animals in the field. Nothing could be further from the truth. The paper is a rebuttal to Mr. R. Wakeman.

That's disappointing. That really wasn't clear in your post that started this:

Fatal Wound Channel

While you did mention Wakeman, it appeared to me that you were primarily seeking a predictive formula for terminal ballistics. It now seems like a personal spat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr glo

Why did I write the paper. Because someone posted a link to Mr. R Wakeman's paper as source to look to, for (as I remember) bullet penetration. Unfortunately, Mr. R Wakeman's paper was nothing of the sort.

So, because of this, I was more than glad to jump right in the pool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr glo

If you or others have inferred that my IPF will translate to actual field result by my other posts, then yes you would be correct. But not by the paper.

Ultimately my IPF is for the comparison of, same cartridge with different bullets. It can be use in the broader sense of cartridge to cartridge. Then to empirical data we all have, about what it takes to kill a game animal. Finally what we know about the field and applied that back to a bullet to bullet comparison within the same cartridge or cartridge to cartridge comparison.

So we have more to read through in the future, AFTER you have gathered evidence of actual killings? Are you going to publish measurement standards of wound channel, reporting standards of cartridge, bullet, velocity, bullet make, animal death details? And you will do this without any knowledge of affiliations of posters to bullet makers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr glo

If my writing style is a little too rough and I have offended any one, I apologize. I am very passionate about this subject.

Not rough at all. Very polite, actually. I'm just concerned about the data that you get, how valid it will be when that data is not in any controlled structure.