Energy

[Steve Davis]

farleg Platinum Member Posts: 3,794

Jun 19, 2022 at 6:23pm harperc, beeman, and 4 more like this QuoteEdit Post by farleg on Jun 19, 2022 at 6:23pm​ Gday I got pulled up for my abrasive comments on where I state “energy is crap “ this is absolutely correct to pull me up as I mean no offence to anyone & can see why people won’t engage as it might be why bother with that idiot who has closed his mind off where I’d like to understand the physics behind what’s involved a little more & don’t dismiss any comments as I try to figure out a better mousetrap ( I also don’t close my mind off just takes a bit to sink in sometimes) I don’t know the specific terms but I’ll take a stab in the queens English terms energy is needed in a momentum state but when we just use the terms ftlbs of energy on some instances we are found to be wanting on preformance when the ftlbs of energy gives us the impression that all should be sufficient to me it comes down to the triangle & especially the penertration leg & if you don’t get the pills design correct a world of hurt can be uncountered then the wound channel that ea pill creates is the key ( bubble ) if we do our part with placement & here is where a form of energy is delivered & what this form is I don’t know & welcome a discussion that would ultimately help us understand the velocity brackets a little more & even refine or replace them for a better understanding of the killing effectiveness of a caliber/ pill so please accept my apology for my wordings some times as I’m really just trying to get a conversation going to hopefully learn a little more & help myself & others get a more effective killing combo hope that makes sense cheers

 

[Steve Davis]

harperc Global Moderator Global Moderator Posts: 2,680

Jun 19, 2022 at 8:11pm rh300um, gltaylor, and 3 more like this QuoteEdit Post by harperc on Jun 19, 2022 at 8:11pm​ Not the biggest cat, not sure of the distance, likely 60 feet +/-. .270 Winchester Factory 130 grain core loct placed on the shoulder slight up angle. Bullet failed to penetrate shoulder, and ultimately required another broadside through the chest. Likely about 3000 ft/lbs energy, well above what many consider adequate for elk or moose. Many handgun loads with much less energy would have been more effective. I've seen this more than once. Yes energy is present, but how, and where it is transferred matters. Maybe some good mathematician can calculate how much of that energy is used altering the bullet to its final form. The assumption that it all goes into the animal is more than I've been able to grasp. Maybe I've misinterpreted what I've seen, but having been in this discussion before, I'll continue in my ignorance until somebody explains it to me in a way my simple mind can understand. Here we have placement, velocity, yet the third leg penetration was sorely lacking. We got out cheap this time, no vet bills sewing up good dogs just out for a good time.

 

[Steve Davis]

richcotte Platinum Member Posts: 590

Jun 19, 2022 at 10:53pm harperc, gltaylor, and 4 more like this QuoteEdit Post by richcotte on Jun 19, 2022 at 10:53pm​ I’m at a loss on the whole concept, other than at some point, it was the only option available to measure a particular projectiles lethal potential. All I can say is that I’ve seen deer run off and never be found, or had to be tracked for 100s of yards after a solid hit from a high energy cartridge, and I’ve also seen a massive bull elk only go 75 yds after a hit from a 55 gr .223 to the lungs. I’ve also seen men keep fighting and live from wounds that should’ve dropped them in their tracks while others fell over and died on the spot from wounds they should’ve been able to drive themselves to the hospital. So….not really sure what to trust other than proven results.

Last Edit: Jun 19, 2022 at 10:53pm by richcotte Rich Cotte Connecting Heroes & Hunters

 

[Steve Davis]

kneedeep Senior Member Posts: 256

Jun 19, 2022 at 11:19pm harperc, gltaylor, and 3 more like this QuoteEdit Post by kneedeep on Jun 19, 2022 at 11:19pm​ Farleg, I’m glad to see you are open to this discussion. I, like you, do not believe that KE translates to “killing or knockdown power.” Harperc’s cat is a prime example. However, I do believe that KE is a valid number and that KE is transferred from the bullet to the animal. I feel that how this energy is transferred makes a big difference. Cup and core, there are some many different designs and variables. HP or tip, jacket thickness, lead core hardness, bonded core, partition, frangible and I’m sure I’ve missed some. I feel that a lot of the KE is transferred into transforming the bullet into it’s final state whether a mushroom or many small pieces. All of these designs are velocity dependent and specific. Run most any of these designs at 3-4K and you’ll likely turn them into a frangible, no matter the design. Regarding Harperc’s cat, I feel the shot distance (high impact velocity for it's design) caused the core lok to become a frangible or something close to it. Effectively exploding in the shoulder. I’m guessing there wasn’t much left of the cat’s shoulder. Those lower velocity handgun loads (designed for those distances) would have likely outperformed your 270, as you stated. And this is a good example of why I don’t believe KE equals killing or knockdown power. As for Hammers, I feel their design is a whole different animal because it takes a lot less energy to shed the nose petals compared to transforming a cup and core design. Allowing the shank to retain a lot of KE or momentum to penetrate to extreme depths. This is why I dived head first into the hammer family. Steve’s explanation of a perfect bullet transitioning from it’s ballistic form to it’s terminal form without loosing any velocity makes perfect sense to me. The hammer design is the closest design to his explanation of any bullet I know. I’m going to exclude the Dead Blow design from the aforementioned because the deep HP takes a lot more energy to shed the nose petals and has a lot smaller relative shank and retained energy, greatly reducing the likelihood for a pass through. Just my 2 cents kneedeep

 

[Steve Davis]

harperc Global Moderator Global Moderator Posts: 2,680

Jun 20, 2022 at 5:27pm riceman, gltaylor, and 3 more like this QuoteEdit Post by harperc on Jun 20, 2022 at 5:27pm​ kneedeep makes some good points. I "THINK" now that we have a bullet that performs consistently across the spectrum of caliber, weight and terminal velocity, we're in a better position to isolate for the variables. Energy may be worth another look, but likely over my head creatively.

 

[Steve Davis]

cbjr Senior Member Posts: 448

Jun 21, 2022 at 4:52am via mobile joe16 and kneedeep like this QuoteEdit Post by cbjr on Jun 21, 2022 at 4:52am​ Jun 20, 2022 at 5:27pm harperc said: kneedeep makes some good points. I "THINK" now that we have a bullet that performs consistently across the spectrum of caliber, weight and terminal velocity, we're in a better position to isolate for the variables. Energy may be worth another look, but likely over my head creatively. I'm still ticking on this idea, but I think there might be a way to incorporate energy into a simple calculation to estimate for a leg of farleg's triangle. Have nailed anything down yet, but what harperc said is kinda where I've been thinking.

"I need a bigger hammer" J.R.B. (My grandfather)

 

[Steve Davis]

kneedeep
Senior Member

Posts: 256
Jun 21, 2022 at 6:44am gltaylor and joe16 like this
QuoteEdit

Post by kneedeep on Jun 21, 2022 at 6:44am​

Jun 21, 2022 at 4:52am cbjr said:

Jun 20, 2022 at 5:27pm harperc said:
kneedeep makes some good points.

I "THINK" now that we have a bullet that performs consistently across the spectrum of caliber, weight and terminal velocity, we're in a better position to isolate for the variables. Energy may be worth another look, but likely over my head creatively.

I'm still ticking on this idea, but I think there might be a way to incorporate energy into a simple calculation to estimate for a leg of farleg's triangle. Have nailed anything down yet, but what harperc said is kinda where I've been thinking.

cbjr

I was hoping you'd jump in this conversation. It's going to take a guy like you to make such calculations. I'm still not looking at energy in the traditional sense (overall performance). I feel energy is a great way to predict shank penetration. That's as far as my abilities will allow. The different nose petal profile/HP diameter/HP depth seem to make a difference in the amount of energy needed to shed the petals and the remaining energy for shank penetration. This info is only based on penetration numbers with farleg's 375 pills. This is with very limited data so I may or may not be on the right track. It did get me to ask the question "does farleg's 137SH/375 have enough penetration for deer at 400 yards even though his velocity is above 1800fps?"

I'm sure you're aware but there are equations for predicting penetration of solids at link

Looking forward to what you come up with

 

[Steve Davis]

kneedeep Senior Member Posts: 256

Jun 21, 2022 at 8:18am gltaylor and joe16 like this QuoteEdit Post by kneedeep on Jun 21, 2022 at 8:18am​ farleg When I think about your velocity brackets and hammers, I first thought at what velocity do the nose petals just disintegrate. The fact that the speed demons on this forum are not able to destroy the nose petals is eye opening for me. When I think about the terminal performance of the shank, the faster the better. If you look at the shock wave of a high BC bullet flying through the air, it has a nice V shape around the bullet. But you can still see it's compressing air (matter) that the bullet doesn't come into physical contact with. When you look at a low BC bullet flying through the air, you see a more rounded shape. Now think about that flat meplat you want on the shank after the nose petals shed. The matter that is towards the center of that meplat isn't directed in any direction, whereas a pointed or rounded nose is. So that really crappy BC, flat meplat compresses and pushes a lot more matter ahead of it. And matter is matter whether it is less dense air or more dense animal matter. The denser the matter the more it affects the surrounding matter. Sound waves in water vs sound waves in the air as a thought. The faster the projectile, the more matter is being compressed in front of it before it has to go one way or another. It's going to cut a wider track because it's being pushed at more of a 90 degree angle around the meplat as opposed to a more streamlined, lesser angle of a high BC shape bullet, penciling through. This is why I'm completely on board with your Velocity brackets. They make perfect sense to me. So this has me thinking, is enough penetration for an exit of the shank good enough for ultimate, extreme performance or should we look at over penetration to some level? If we need 20" of penetration to get through a quartering shot on an animal and the potential for penetration of our shank is 22", it's going to perform extremely well. But that shank will have slowed to low velocity through part of the organs. Is there an over penetration level that produces a higher level of bang flops because the shank is moving faster, doing more damage through the organs? I know these questions are slitting frog hairs, so it may be a useless conversation. Seems to me you are already providing the above point with your on game performance. Feel free to disagree and I may be at "just my 6 cents" now kneedeep

 

[Steve Davis]

edd Full Member Posts: 210

Jun 21, 2022 at 12:39pm QuoteEdit Post by edd on Jun 21, 2022 at 12:39pm​ Trauma is caused by the application of energy to the target.

 

[Steve Davis]

lou270 New Member Posts: 25

Jun 21, 2022 at 1:43pm via mobile harperc, riceman, and 3 more like this QuoteEdit Post by lou270 on Jun 21, 2022 at 1:43pm​ Lot of technical papers, books, and research on this. The extent of the wounding is proportional to the KE. Bullet construction, impact velocity, surface area, and shape dictate how fast the energy is transfered to target. All ballistic literature disagree with the idea that a bullet that holds its energy is good for increasing terminal performance so long as penetration is sufficient. Otherwise, the less energy a bullet loses the less damage it does. Period, end of story. This is physics. I think the reason hammers work so well is they dump a tremendous amount of energy early. This creates a large temorary cavity that combined with the fragmentation (petals) creates a larger permanent wound cavity, at least compared to monos designed to hold the petals There are lot of misconceptions on energy/wounding out there. A couple of common ones are “temporary wound cavity” and “shock”. Temporary wound cavity is the rapid expansion of tissue away from bullet as it passes. In general, the higher the velocity, the larger the surface area, the flatter the surface the bigger the temp cavity. Temporary wound cavity only refers to the duration of the event not the effects on wounding. After the temporary cavity subsides the permanent wound channel is left. Depending on velocity, elasticity of tissues, etc.. the permanent wound will be several times larger than bullet diameter but will be significantly smaller than the maximum size of the temporary cavity which can be 10+x diameters. This is why you shoot a deer with you favorite 6.5 or 30 but see a 2 in hole through the lungs. At low (ie handgun) velocity the temporary wound cavity has little wounding effect, but at high velocity, it is potentially dramatic. For ex, combine temp wound cavity, with some fragmenting either from lead shrapnel or hammer petals and you will have much larger wounding. Tissue that may only stretch and return without fragmenting will tear apart when shredded by fragments. An analogy Fackler used was pull a rubber band tight and then nick it with a razor and pull tight and see what happens Incidentally, the permanent hole produced by a bullet will be smaller than bullet diameter as at some point a bullet starts pulling / pushing things as it goes through vs crushing and cutting until it eventually stops. This is why velocity is much more important to bullets than arrows which are designed to cut not crush and another reason hammers (and incidentally nosler partitions) work well. “Hydrostatic Shock” is something much less understood. Shock being wounding or incapacitation from ballisitic pressure waves travelling to remote areas causing incapacitation or distant wounding. Fackler dismissed it but other researches such as Courtney and Wang have shown proof something is going on. However most seem to agree not understood enough to rely on yet I personally think we say “energy doesn’t matter” because the only wounding that does matter is what happens in a vital area. A significant hole in the vitals will end things quickly and making that hole bigger may or may not make things end more quickly. Impact velocity and bullet construction play a big role in what that wounding will look like but it is still proportional to the KE available Lou

 

[Steve Davis]

cbjr Senior Member Posts: 448

Jun 21, 2022 at 3:35pm via mobile harperc, jamesmuhlbeier, and 3 more like this QuoteEdit Post by cbjr on Jun 21, 2022 at 3:35pm​ kneedeep I've read that paper twice already, once before finding hammers and again, shortly after. I've been meaning to re-read it here lately, especially since I've forgotten that section was in there, but just haven't gotten there yet. I think part of the energy argument is valid (see edd comment above) but is also only a small portion to overall penetration. Momentum and resistance carrying a bigger role in the "equation". Sometimes, I think we forget that ft-lb of energy, like horsepower in an engine, is only a mathematical equation at its core. Both lean heavily on time/speed. That doesn't mean its completely useless. It does give us a reference point against sheer velocity with bullets or torque from an engine. Example: 400hp small block vs 400hp Peterbuilt is like a 243, a 55grHH @4100fps vs 300rum, 124grHH @ 4100fps. The smaller diameter 243 shank will encounter less frontal resistance, but not have the push from behind(calculated in ft-lb) like the 124gr shank(likely more than 100% more weight, but only ~27% larger diameter). Then we have the view from the velocity standpoint that the 124 will loose it at a lower rate of time. I really believe edd's view and farleg's view are closer together than either realize, just from a different angle/understanding. kneedeep, Hopefully I can find an equation to stop the "nit-picking" and show them they both are correct! Bahahaha! I got some work to do, but later, I can go into the cons of both arguments deeper if y'all want me to poke both bears a bit more!!! Sometimes, you just need to be a glass half empty kinda guy! lol

"I need a bigger hammer" J.R.B. (My grandfather)

 

[Steve Davis]

joe16 Platinum Member Posts: 1,665

Jun 21, 2022 at 4:33pm via mobile harperc, riceman, and 2 more like this QuoteEdit Post by joe16 on Jun 21, 2022 at 4:33pm​ Poke, by all means poke.

 

[Steve Davis]

harperc Global Moderator Global Moderator Posts: 2,680

Jun 21, 2022 at 9:43pm gltaylor, cbjr, and 2 more like this QuoteEdit Post by harperc on Jun 21, 2022 at 9:43pm​ Jun 21, 2022 at 8:18am kneedeep said: So this has me thinking, is enough penetration for an exit of the shank good enough for ultimate, extreme performance or should we look at over penetration to some level? If we need 20" of penetration to get through a quartering shot on an animal and the potential for penetration of our shank is 22", it's going to perform extremely well. But that shank will have slowed to low velocity through part of the organs. Is there an over penetration level that produces a higher level of bang flops because the shank is moving faster, doing more damage through the organs? I know these questions are slitting frog hairs, so it may be a useless conversation. Seems to me you are already providing the above point with your on game performance. Feel free to disagree and I may be at "just my 6 cents" now kneedeep Over penetration i likely the best way to describe my desires, as I've been to multiple under penetrating rodeo's. Splitting hairs is kind of what some of us do. Just my 6 cents (dang inflation) now, is the perfect approach to these conversations. Hopefully, we all continue to learn something..

 

[Steve Davis]

harperc Global Moderator Global Moderator Posts: 2,680

Jun 21, 2022 at 9:44pm cbjr, joe16, and 1 more like this QuoteEdit Post by harperc on Jun 21, 2022 at 9:44pm​ Jun 21, 2022 at 3:35pm cbjr said: kneedeep , Hopefully I can find an equation to stop the "nit-picking" and show them they both are correct! Bahahaha! I got some work to do, but later, I can go into the cons of both arguments deeper if y'all want me to poke both bears a bit more!!! Sometimes, you just need to be a glass half empty kinda guy! lol Nit picking is very ingrained in my nature. Please poke the bears.

 

[Steve Davis]

kneedeep Senior Member Posts: 256

Jun 21, 2022 at 9:45pm harperc, riceman, and 2 more like this QuoteEdit Post by kneedeep on Jun 21, 2022 at 9:45pm​ Jun 21, 2022 at 3:35pm cbjr said: kneedeep I've read that paper twice already, once before finding hammers and again, shortly after. I've been meaning to re-read it here lately, especially since I've forgotten that section was in there, but just haven't gotten there yet. I think part of the energy argument is valid (see edd comment above) but is also only a small portion to overall penetration. Momentum and resistance carrying a bigger role in the "equation". Sometimes, I think we forget that ft-lb of energy, like horsepower in an engine, is only a mathematical equation at its core. Both lean heavily on time/speed. That doesn't mean its completely useless. It does give us a reference point against sheer velocity with bullets or torque from an engine. Example: 400hp small block vs 400hp Peterbuilt is like a 243, a 55grHH @4100fps vs 300rum, 124grHH @ 4100fps. The smaller diameter 243 shank will encounter less frontal resistance, but not have the push from behind(calculated in ft-lb) like the 124gr shank(likely more than 100% more weight, but only ~27% larger diameter). Then we have the view from the velocity standpoint that the 124 will loose it at a lower rate of time. I really believe edd's view and farleg's view are closer together than either realize, just from a different angle/understanding. kneedeep , Hopefully I can find an equation to stop the "nit-picking" and show them they both are correct! Bahahaha! I got some work to do, but later, I can go into the cons of both arguments deeper if y'all want me to poke both bears a bit more!!! Sometimes, you just need to be a glass half empty kinda guy! lol The nit-picking will likely not stop but more explanations are certainly welcome. X2 on Poking the bears. I'm also glad to see a few others have added to the discussion. If you can somewhat bring us together on this issue, "cbjr" is most likely my write in candidate for President. Haha

 

[Steve Davis]

harperc Global Moderator Global Moderator Posts: 2,680

Jun 21, 2022 at 9:55pm gltaylor, cbjr, and 1 more like this QuoteEdit Post by harperc on Jun 21, 2022 at 9:55pm​ Jun 21, 2022 at 12:39pm edd said: Trauma is caused by the application of energy to the target. I for one would like to hear your expanded thoughts on the subject. Such as how do you personally choose to apply energy, do you have basic minimum energy parameters for differing species, is energy the the primary factor you uses in deciding your hunting needs, or is it farther down the list of your requirements for hunting.

 

[Steve Davis]

cbjr Senior Member Posts: 448

Jun 21, 2022 at 11:26pm via mobile harperc, riceman, and 1 more like this QuoteEdit Post by cbjr on Jun 21, 2022 at 11:26pm​ I'm going on hour 23 for the day, so.... I'm might sound a bit biased, but I'll try to equally poke both ways. To start, I'll bring both together, "With increasing velocity comes increasing energy exponentially". See, now they are friends! Lol! Farleg's exploits have shown what high velocity can do for us. The downside is with higher velocity at impact and during penetration, comes higher resistance. Place your hand on top a couple feet of water, then push it through to the bottom. Now raise your hand over your head and try to smack the bottom. Notice how much more force it takes to get it there. Thankfully for us water is much denser than vital organs for the most part. In the past, this argument was used against the 460wby, stemming from bullets with inadequate construction. Hammers have this part covered in spades. In addition, the large flat meplats trying to overcome the resistance of hides many times tougher and thicker than I'll probably ever encounter. Dismissing energy for velocity, but saying we need to find ample penetration for intended quarry, is giving a need for a calculation. One such way just so happens to be measured in ft-lbs. The energy argument most of us have heard and brought us here, is the "energy dump". Take the 300 rum, 205 berger(this is their argument, sorry) @ 3000fps muzzle. It has over 3700ft-lbs at 100yds. You will get their "energy dump". If an animal at 1/25th(148lbs body weight) of the lbs would truly absorb 3700ft-lbs, it could potentially move the animal 25ft in the direction of bullet travel. That won't happen. I shot a 100lb doe on the run at point blank with a 30-30(funny story for another time and before hammers). Surely, if she absorbed even 1/4 of the 1800ftlbs, it should have moved her 4.5 feet? Nope, she spun herself 180° and ran for 50 yards. Most of the energy is simply lost in transformation and not deposited anywhere. This is where I feel hammers maintain their velocity in the shank. Only a portion of the pill is transforming. That maintained velocity can continue to impart exponential energy into vital tissue through its entire continued penetration. Ooops, that wasn't a con... Holy novel. I guess I really don't need to come up with a formula(see the quote in first paragraph) as Einstein already has done this. E=MC². Whereas, E is energy = M(mass) and C² is velocity², but that won't keep me from trying. Lol. I'm not a mathematician by any stretch. I never took anything past algebra one, but I do love this stuff and searching for the Holy Grail keeps me wanting to learn more. My wife thinks I'm crazy when I sit down with an excel spreadsheet trying to come up with a calculator for some new idea that pops in my head. Lol. Heck, one convo with farleg last week and I already made another one. Wait make that two new ones. I look forward to more input. I never know when an odd question, thought or fact will inspire another one.

"I need a bigger hammer" J.R.B. (My grandfather)

 

[Steve Davis]

richcotte Platinum Member Posts: 590

Jun 21, 2022 at 11:55pm Steve Davis, harperc, and 2 more like this QuoteEdit Post by richcotte on Jun 21, 2022 at 11:55pm​ This all brings me back to a question I asked in another thread concerning caliber comparison. Let’s use .264 and .308 in 124HH for the sample…. If both are traveling at the same velocity on impact, they both are carrying the same amount of KE, so, assuming the same stability factor as well…which one is more effective?

Rich Cotte Connecting Heroes & Hunters

 

[Steve Davis]

edd Full Member Posts: 210

Jun 22, 2022 at 5:43am gltaylor, cbjr, and 3 more like this QuoteEdit Post by edd on Jun 22, 2022 at 5:43am​ Jun 21, 2022 at 11:55pm richcotte said: This all brings me back to a question I asked in another thread concerning caliber comparison. Let’s use .264 and .308 in 124HH for the sample…. If both are traveling at the same velocity on impact, they both are carrying the same amount of KE, so, assuming the same stability factor as well…which one is more effective? If both bullets have enough energy for a complete pass thru on the target and if both bullets take the same path thru the target, the larger diameter bullet will apply more energy to the target.

 

[Steve Davis]

joe16 Platinum Member Posts: 1,665

Jun 22, 2022 at 6:22am via mobile riceman likes this QuoteEdit Post by joe16 on Jun 22, 2022 at 6:22am​ Fellas Speakn to Farleg as I post. He apolagizes for absence, hes getn ready for his trip. He has one comment though. "ENERGY IS CRAP" He thinks the term is incomplete. TPIA Joe