Shooters Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

Registered
Joined
110 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi,

As I read thru the forum, there is always that old conversation about high velocity (light weight? .22-250ish) VS the heavy & slow (.45-70 w/500 gr bullets-ish) theories. Mostly I shoot paper, which doesn't really care, so I have little experience to back any opinions I might harbor.

On that note, I watched this video about crossbow shooting & thought maybe this guy has some insight maybe we are missing.

"Energy is the messenger, Momentum is the message."

Pretty sure this is called stirring the pot!:rolleyes:馃槆
 

The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
37,098 Posts
Most of that sort of thing, and indeed, most of what is in our gun press..... is written by people who appear to have flunked grade school physics, among other subjects :rolleyes:

Wound ballistics is an incredibly complicated thing and there are few people who can comprehend the math involved, let alone apply the theory to the real world.

Most of the ballistic 'theories' (if we can denigrate the word 'theory' to apply it here), are at best, wild guesses or written by marketing people to get you to buy things you don't need, don't understand, or both.
 

Registered
Joined
105 Posts
Evidently not everybody is a genius like some of you guys are, there seems to be simple mortals that like to discuss ideas and learn things that are new to them. Rather than being insulting maybe some of you experts could help educate the ignorant masses and post some of your pearls of wisdom rather wasting everybody's time with snarky crap.
 

The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
37,098 Posts
I've tried. But it is a little difficult to fit engineering level fluid dynamics, physics, biology, and math into a ten minute video. A couple of years of study, combined with some actual hunting experience with a variety of methods (rifle/pisto/archery) is a good start to understanding how little we know of what happens after the 'bang.'

It is just incredibly complex. Rather than pontificate on their pet theories, if the armchair 'experts' would just list every animal they've shot, where they hit it (no 'guessing' on lost animals), how far it ran, what they used, impact velocity, and what the wound channel was.... then a database of practical experience could be put together that at least confirms what works well, and what doesn't work well. And in end, that's the goal, to find out what works (or should work) before we go afield.

Empirical evidence is a lot easier to digest when the subject is so complex. Eh sorry there isn't enough space on the video channels, nor enough time to watch them all, to learn much of anything useful on the subject. When there are competing videos, that say the opposite thing, and neither of them is correct..... what's the point of watching them?

I used to soak up all the crap in the gun rags, too, like it was carved on stone tablets and carried down the mountain by Moses....... :p

How about this for a ballistic statement: "When they run out of blood, they will be dead 100% of the time. How soon they run out of blood, however, is a much more difficult thing to predict, if you want to have anything left that's fit to eat." Feel free to quote me! ;)
 

Premium Member
Joined
15,574 Posts
Bullets striking living things have too many variables to make gathered data meaningful. Trauma surgeons will say there are commonalities in bullet wounds just like we see in game animals, but too many variables means the data is too incomplete to make definitive statements of facts, just judgements made on experience.

ONE example of bullet performance might demonstrate that perfectly. It's the strangest in my experience. --- Accidental bullet wound from a .454 Casull, 250 factory HP. Range, less than three feet, not fatal. Hit in the upper left chest, no bones hit. The spent bullet was caught by his shirt.
Black bear load?? That's what the box says.
 

Registered
Joined
649 Posts
After doing due diligence for 50+ years this is what I know;
Energy, particularly Kinetic Energy, has some effect on bullet expansion and penetration in hard targets like steel plates.
Momentum has something to do with penetration in soft targets but is modified by expansion.
Trajectory has so many unknown variables that it is a number to evaluate one calculation to another. The same can be said of internal and terminal ballistics. The only thing that kills is destruction of the ability to move. You can shoot the brain or the brain stem for instant stop or you can let them bleed to death. If you enjoy tracking wounded animals the low lung shot is fine or the infamous "Texas Heart" shot is the most gruesome. Shot placement is more important than anything.
In the end what matters is what you can do with what you have loaded in your gun.

The numbers are meaningless by themselves and may or may not mean anything for you as a loader or shooter. If you want to use those numbers be sure you know what part of the puzzle they relate to and when someone disagrees with you just accept that those numbers mean something else to them. You are not necessarily wrong but they might not be wrong either.

Don't get me wrong, numbers can play important roles in the shooting sports but only if you have an accurate load that is consistent and you have the skill (practice) to use it properly. You can then use the numbers to calculate your trajectory before you go to the range and make notes of the trajectory you are producing under your conditions. It will be what it is and may or may not agree with the numbers. Just accept what you find is real and let the numbers be what they are - just numbers.
 

Registered
Joined
630 Posts
One of the oldest and most abused mathematical 鈥渢heories鈥 on killing power is Taylor鈥檚 Knock Out Factor. So many folks - from gun writers to new shooters - use it to quantify how well their pet cartridge kills animals like deer and elk or how poorly other cartridges perform. They simply regurgitate what they read somewhere. Few if any go to the source.

Taylor clearly states that 鈥淚 do not pretend that they [TKOs] represent 鈥渒illling power鈥; but they do give an excellent basis from which any two rifles may be compared from the point of view of the actual knock-down blow, or punch, inflicted by the bullet on massive, heavy-boned animals such as elephant, rhino and buffalo鈥. He later elaborates that this stunning effect applies for the most part to near misses of the brain on these large animals, enabling a more leasurely dispatch of the animal with a follow-up shot.

Not at all what the majority of people think it means is it? Death by gunshot or arrow or spear cannot be reliably quantified mathematically. It is just too complex. FWIW, I will note that IME I have had and seen many more deer knocked down (not DRT whatever that means, death is seldom instantaneous) with flat-pointed .45-70 bullets than I have with faster, smaller, pointy bullets on non-CNS hits.





.
 

Registered
Joined
259 Posts
When I was youngster, Newton's momentum idea was competing with Leibniz's energy idea.
They both invented calculus independently.
When I calculate how far a 1911 will eject a case, I have to go back and forth between their two formulas.
Before the www [told you I was old] there was rec.guns on usenet. Endless debates about stopping power. One interesting post pointed out that Nicole Simpson was stopped with ~ 5 foot pounds of energy. Sometimes when we get to this point in science, someone will mention the null hypothesis. I cannot abide that. There must be some energy, even if just a little.
 

Registered
Joined
604 Posts
Well, as I have said before, both energy and momentum can be important in comparing rounds but in the end neither of them are worth a hill of beans at predicting what is going to happen when you shoot a game animal.

A 30-30 with a bullet designed to operate optimally will kill better with less meat loss than a 300 Win Mag with a bullet that operates poorly.

Knowing your bullet performance and matching it to your expectations and the round you are shooting is just as important as selecting the right tires for your car. It's why you don't see a lot of Pontiac Fierro's with 35" Wooly Boogers on them.
 

The Shadow (Moderator)
Joined
8,520 Posts
1) Evidently not everybody is a genius like some of you guys are, there seems to be simple mortals that like to discuss ideas and learn things that are new to them. Rather than being insulting...

2) maybe some of you experts could help educate the ignorant masses and post some of your pearls of wisdom rather wasting everybody's time with snarky crap.
1) If a "mere mortal"馃檮 wishes to discuss and learn from any human they interact with, it helps if they don't waste energy looking for offense in everything...

2) Here's a pearl of wisdom:
You should lighten-up, and enjoy the conversations and alternative views on things that are available here. Maybe you will learn something, maybe you won't; only time will tell.
 

The Shadow (Moderator)
Joined
8,520 Posts
. Sometimes when we get to this point in science, someone will mention the null hypothesis. I cannot abide that. There must be some energy, even if just a little.
Ahhh and there's the rub. A "little bit" is most often simply the noise of randomness or chance, due to the sample size; thereby confirming the null hypothesis. 馃槈

Cheers
 

The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
37,098 Posts
When I was youngster, Newton's momentum idea was competing with Leibniz's energy idea.
They both invented calculus independently.
When I calculate how far a 1911 will eject a case, I have to go back and forth between their two formulas.
Before the www [told you I was old] there was rec.guns on usenet. Endless debates about stopping power. One interesting post pointed out that Nicole Simpson was stopped with ~ 5 foot pounds of energy. Sometimes when we get to this point in science, someone will mention the null hypothesis. I cannot abide that. There must be some energy, even if just a little.
Yup, sort of confirms the 'theory' that when the big red pumpy thingie runs out of stuff to pump, or quits working.... then that's the end of that.

Mathematically, I don't see that 'theory' getting disproved anytime soon. There ya go, saved everyone hours of agony watching grainy, jumpy videos with lots of 'ums' and 'ers' and such ;) You're all welcome!!!! :p
 

Super Moderator
Joined
13,631 Posts
Well, I'm not sanguine that Montmac doesn't have a point when he references "ideas and鈥hings that are new to {a forum reader}". Those of us who've been through this debate several dozen times and realize the limitations of numbers that attempt to rank terminal ballistic performance are perhaps suffering a little debate fatigue and starting to think things should be obvious which really are not and were not obvious, even to Newton. I think I'll start a sticky on terminal ballistics in the Ballistics forum on this topic.
 

Registered
Joined
1,556 Posts
Why wasn't this thread closed or deleted days ago as others deemed to have "run their course"?

Interesting how some silly threads are allowed to stay and other that have interest are closed. JMHO

Joel
 

Premium Member
Joined
15,574 Posts
"To a hammer, the whole world is a nail".
Some can't grasp an action without a number attached to it or something to hang a formula and 'rule' to.

In 1976, I wrote a questionnaire that was handed out freely to gunsmithing students regards bullet 'performance on game'. One questionnaire per bullet reported resulted on just over 300 reports. Both objective and subjective data was collected with the obvious non-data entries thrown out or clarified in person.
It was interesting but nothing stood out but two things. Nobody had a 'failure' with a Remington Core Loct and nobody had anything good to say about big game performance with a certain brand of cup and core bullet of the time.
It would be good to do such a thing now in the age of computer, but brand loyalty now is about 100X stronger.... with opinions to match, these days.
I thought I knew something from reading magazine articles and shooting a dozen hogs and deer with four calibers. But a whitetail cull with three other shooters and a chance to test, observe and study 'in depth and in person' showed I was mostly mistaken.
Bullet placement is more important than bullet construction.
See #7 for a real world result that just amazed me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jimboro

Registered
Joined
4,725 Posts
All you really need to know is a 7-08 {modernized 7x57} with a 140-150gr. bullet will kill damn near anything in about 4 seconds if you can hit a palm sized area in it's boiler room. I was thinking today that for the umpteenth time I'm venturing off into experimental ballistics/cartridge land with this 6mm arc, probably use it to try and fill a doe deer and antelope tags I have, no doubt it'll kill them but will it do it as quick as a 7-08, probably not.
 

Registered
Joined
518 Posts
I've always liked what the late Elmer Keith said " a large slow moving bullet giving complete penetration let's a lot of air in and a lot of blood out"
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top