Is "Muzzle Energy" significant?

[JohnKSa]

All moving objects have both energy and momentum understanding what each effects doesn't ignore the existence of the other.

Correct.

As such I haven't ignored the effects that energy have...

Yes, energy has many effects, some of which affect penetration and some of which do not.

Getting back to the topic of this exchange: penetration. You have, and continue to, ignore one very important effect of energy--the expansion of the bullet--which affects bullet diameter and therefore penetration.

It is certainly true that momentum is in general terms a good measure of the potential for penetration, but that does not mean energy is not a factor. In the same way, energy is in general terms a good measure of the potential of a moving object to cause damage/to do work. Neither can be ignored, and neither tells the whole story. Both need to be properly understood.

You clearly have an interest in this topic, but you continue to expend a considerable amount of effort trying to come up with and defend your own theory of moving objects and terminal ballistics independent of what has already been developed and established by the scientific community over the past few centuries. The result is that your understanding is limited in some respects and simply incorrect in other respects. If you want to improve your understanding, the first step is achieving a working knowledge of the basic physics of moving objects.

 

[45_auto]

It's energy that tears things apart, not momentum.

Nope, actually it's work that tears things apart.

Trying to keep it as simple as possible:

Energy is the ABILITY to do work.

Work = Force x Distance.

For example, if I move my 2,000 pound tensile test machine from New Orleans (sea level) to the top of Mount Everest (29,000 feet), the tensile test machine just gained 58,000 ft-lb of energy.

But if you put a bubble-gum wrapper in the machine, it won't be able to pull it apart. All that energy has no effect.

 

[Catfish King]

If a grizzly tries to steal my Hershey bar, and all I have is a .45, regardless of the ammo in the gun, I am going to politely allow Mr. Grizzly to have said Hershey bar.

As far an ammo's penetration depth, this is not the end all factor which some believe it to be. Generally speaking, for personal SD against criminals, I'd rather use a round that only penetrates four or five inches, but dumps all of its energy into the bad guy, than I would use a round that penetrates twelve or more inches, and possibly even exits the bad guy. Regardless of penetration, placement is also a primary factor.

For instance, if someone is running towards you with a machete, and after you get over the initial "Oscar Foxtrot" emotion that someone is going to try to kill you, and after you've placed those two or more rounds in the thoracic triangle/center mass like you always trained to do but he's still coming, will you then think through the situation enough so as to start placing two, three, or more shots lower down into the bad guy's pelvic area? You crack his pelvis, or hit him in either one of the hip joints, the absolute most he'll have in him is one more step on the good side that's left. As for me, I say the more shots the merrier.

Lastly, as a buddy of mine from Alaska says, "When in grizzly country, if you're carrying anything less than a .454 magnum, be sure to file off the front sight of your sidearm. This way, you wont chip your teeth with your last shot and the local officials can more easily identify your remains by way of dental records."

 

[45_auto]

You crack his pelvis, or hit him in either one of the hip joints, the absolute most he'll have in him is one more step on the good side that's left...

When in grizzly country, if you're carrying anything less than a .454 magnum,

Who makes a .454 Magnum? Is that a new cartridge with more energy and is somehow more effective at breaking hips than a taxi cab?

14 year old kid is in a body cast down here after a hit and run by a taxi running a stop sign. If it was moving at even 5 MPH, that's over 3,000 ft-lb of energy. But the kid walked four blocks home with a broken hip after being hit. You really think a pistol bullet hit in the hip with 25% or so of the energy can be counted on to limit someone determined to kill you to one step?

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/07/jpso_searching_for_cab_driver.html

Teen in body cast after Metairie hit-and-run involving taxi cab

The boys' bicycles were too damaged to ride, so Reid limped four blocks to his grandmother's house, with Josiah's help. Unbeknownst to Reid, he had fractured his hip, said his mother, Ingrid Norah, 38.

Generally speaking, for personal SD against criminals, I'd rather use a round that only penetrates four or five inches, but dumps all of its energy into the bad guy,

Your life, your decision. Lots of people out there wanting to sell you high-energy, low-penetration ammo (Magsafe,etc). It hasn't worked out very well in the real world.

 

[mavracer]

Yes, energy has many effects, some of which affect penetration and some of which do not.

All the ones that relate to penatration are directy related to the inertia of mass.

You have, and continue to, ignore one very important effect of energy--the expansion of the bullet--which affects bullet diameter and therefore penetration.

Sigh, We are not really concerned with the sound or temprature of the bullet expanding, we are really only concerned with the diameter it obtains from the permanent movement of mass. you only get to move as much mass as the bullet possesses in the way of inertia.

 

[Catfish King]

When in grizzly country, if you're carrying anything less than a .454 magnum, Who makes a .454 Magnum? Is that a new cartridge with more energy and is somehow more effective at breaking hips than a taxi cab?

Technically the .454 is not a magnum, thanks, and I stand corrected (was tired when I wrote that post); however, since the .454 round itself has to utilize a rifle primer due to extreme pressures inside the cartridge and the round itself can exit the barrel at +1800 fps while attaining ~2000 ft-lbs of energy, I think it's safe to assert that .454 round pretty much equals, bests, or wholly outshines even the magnum loads of other high caliber pistols, so I am not that disappointed in myself for being tired and making that referencing mistake.

14 year old kid is in a body cast down here after a hit and run by a taxi running a stop sign. If it was moving at even 5 MPH, that's over 3,000 ft-lb of energy. But the kid walked four blocks home with a broken hip after being hit. You really think a pistol bullet hit in the hip with 25% or so of the energy can be counted on to limit someone determined to kill you to one step?

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/...ab_driver.html

You've really gone well beyond the usual 'apples to oranges' conundrum here. So understanding, I will address your apples to moon rocks correlation on this wise.

First, I would never, and I mean I would NEVER hunt grizzlies with a taxi cab. Without doing the math myself, I'll defer and assume you're right with your computations. Even so, never minding your proving the superior energy release of a taxi's bumper at 5mph compared to that of the .454 round at over 1800fps, although fantastically feasible on paper, the logistics for the practical application of killing a grizzly with a taxi cab is pretty much an impossible endeavor in my humble opinion.

Second, the glaring problem with your premise only deals with a person being hit by a tax cab. Do you have any relevant data for a person being hit in the hip by a .454 round? If you do, I am positive there would be a remarkable and easily quantifiable difference between the two subjects.

Your life, your decision. Lots of people out there wanting to sell you high-energy, low-penetration ammo (Magsafe,etc). It hasn't worked out very well in the real world.

Marketing by advertising companies is not something I would hang my hopes on when it comes to SD. On the other hand, I stand by my assertion that all things equal otherwise, a round passing all the way through someone is not going to release the same amount of energy as that of a round stopping inside someone.

Oh, and I stand by the hip shooting advice for a charging attacker too. Once you do the center mass shot(s), and the threat is still coming at you, go for the foundation (pelvis) bringing the threat.

 

[JohnKSa]

All the ones that relate to penatration are directy related to the inertia of mass.

Incorrect since the expanded diameter is primarily a function of energy and clearly relates to penetration.

...we are really only concerned with the diameter it obtains from the permanent movement of mass.

The deformation/expansion of the bullet (and therefore the final diameter of the bullet) is primarily a function of energy.

...you only get to move as much mass as the bullet possesses in the way of inertia.

If you would spend the time to get a basic foundation in the physics of moving objects, you would be able to discuss the topic in such a way that it doesn't take multiple attempts to get your point across. I'm not sure how your statement relates to expansion or precisely what you're trying to say. I do know that if you're trying to say that expansion is not a function of energy you're wrong, and you would know it too had you heeded the suggestion I made earlier in the thread.

...a round passing all the way through someone is not going to release the same amount of energy as that of a round stopping inside someone.

All else being equal, if a round passes through the target and is still moving when it exits, then it does less damage than one that stops in the target. That may or may not mean the one that stops in the target is more effective.

For example, if a bullet doesn't penetrate significantly, the fact that more tissue is destroyed is likely irrelevant since a bullet must penetrate significantly to physically incapacitate. Blowing a shallow crater in an animal may dump a lot of energy, but if the bullet doesn't penetrate deeply enough to damage critical organs/vessels then all the expended energy is irrelevant from a practical standpoint. Of course, in an example like that where one blows a shallow crater while the other penetrates fully, all else is clearly not equal.

Momentum and energy are quantities that represent the POTENTIAL of a bullet to perform certain tasks. Determining whether or not the bullet can actually do something useful with that potential requires much more information.

 

[45_auto]

All else being equal, if a round passes through the target and is still moving when it exits, then it does less damage than one that stops in the target.

I'm surprised to see you say that.

You believe that a .356" diameter hole halfway through the target does MORE damage than a .356" diameter hole all the way through the target?

I thought that even the FBI figured that one out after the Miami shootout in 1986.

 

[B.L.E.]

14 year old kid is in a body cast down here after a hit and run by a taxi running a stop sign. If it was moving at even 5 MPH, that's over 3,000 ft-lb of energy. But the kid walked four blocks home with a broken hip after being hit. You really think a pistol bullet hit in the hip with 25% or so of the energy can be counted on to limit someone determined to kill you to one step?

A 3600 pound car going 7.33 fps (5 mph) would have 3003.5 ft.-lb. of KE.

If the kid weighed 150 lb., the car would have been slowed down to 7.04 fps by the collision and would still have 2768 of the original 3003.5 ft.-lb. of KE.

The 150 lb. kid would be accelerated to 7.04 fps by the collision and would now have 115.3 ft.-lb. of KE.

The combined KE of the car and the kid immediately after the collision would be 2768+115.3 = 2883.33 ft.-lb. of KE.

The missing energy, 120.16 ft.-lb. was consumed in damaging the kid and the car during the collision and is now 0.154 BTUs of heat.

This assumes an inelastic collision, which most car collisions are. Elastic collisions, (billiard balls) are a little more complicated.

The only way that car could have used all 3003.5 ft.-lb. of energy to damage the kid was if the kid had been prevented from accelerating to the car's speed by being between the car and a concrete barrier.

 

[mavracer]

If you would spend the time to get a basic foundation in the physics of moving objects, you would be able to discuss the topic in such a way that it doesn't take multiple attempts to get your point across.

If you would stop being condensending and accept that I may just have a better understanding of the interactions between the laws of energy and the laws of inertia, you might have an easier time understanding the reality of how these laws relate to the external ballistics of firearms.

You would understand the laws of energy don't break the laws of inertia ever.

You would understand that kinetic energy is a property of inertia not the other way around.

You would understand what happens to kinetic energy and work and how that relates to the changes in what kind of energy is present.

There are a ton of real simple facts that show that what I'm saying is correct if you'll stop for a second and think maybe it's you that needs a better understanding.

 

[JohnKSa]

You believe that a .356" diameter hole halfway through the target does MORE damage than a .356" diameter hole all the way through the target?

If two identical projectiles with equal energy hit a homogeneous target medium (everything is equal except for the amount of penetration) and one passes through but the other does not that means that the one that exited did not expend all its energy in the target. That means it did less work on the target than the one that expended all of its energy penetrating the target medium.

The only way that could actually happen with the stated constraints is for the projectile that failed to penetrate fully to have had to go through MORE of the target medium than the one that passed through. That means it would have acted on/damaged more of the target medium than the one that went through less of the target medium and therefore passed through.

Remember my statement started with the statement that all else was equal and that means that if the penetration is different that can only be the result of one projectile encountering less target medium than the other.

If you start them out with different energies or give them different target mediums (or non-homogenous target mediums where one might hit something hard while the other one doesn't) or make one expand while the other does not, then things get more complicated.

This is where misconceptions can easily arise. A problem is simplified to make it tractable but the ramifications of the simplification are not fully appreciated.

If you don't constrain anything and simply ask which projectile does more damage, the one that penetrates X or the one that penetrates 2X, then there's no way to answer the question.

If you would stop being condensending...

I'm not being condescending, I'm trying to help you learn about something you obviously find interesting and also trying to insure that the incorrect statements being made on the thread aren't preserved for posterity without a counterpoint being provided.

The problem is that to learn, one must accept the fact that he needs to learn and you don't want to hear that from me. Since it appears that you aren't going to accept my explanations on the topic, I've suggested that perhaps you could find the information you need to form a proper understanding from other sources on the internet which you may consider to be more reliable/authoritative.

...accept that I may just have a better understanding of the interactions between the laws of energy and the laws of inertia...

The problem is that your comments make it plain that you do not have a grasp of the basic physics of moving objects.

...if you'll stop for a second and think...

I've done a lot more than that. In fact, in the course of this discussion I have done a considerable amount of reading and research on the topic to do my best to insure that I am not making incorrect or misleading statements. Not because I haven't ever studied the topic before or because it was new to me--neither of those things is true. I did it because I understand that I don't know everything, that I don't have a perfect memory and that I can make mistakes. So I try to double-check things whenever I can and this discussion has been no different in that respect.

 

[B.L.E.]

I believe the main reason that penetration is not proportional to KE, bullet mass being equal, is because it takes more force to go through something fast than slow, especially a fluid.
That's why the water below a 3 meter diving board does not have to be 3 times as deep as the water below a 1 meter diving board in order to arrest the fall of the diver, even though a diver falling from a height of 3 meters will have three times the KE of a diver falling from 1 meter when he reaches the water's surface.
The fact that hitting nothing but water will make bullets mushroom illustrates just how extreme the force needed to penetrate a fluid like water becomes at high velocities.

 

[mavracer]

I have done a considerable amount of reading and research on the topic to do my best to insure that I am not making incorrect or misleading statements.

And yet you still keep making the same fundamental mistake in not understanding the basic principles of energy.

Energy isn't what moves stuff inertia is, energy is what heats stuff, stretches stuff and makes noise and pressure.

Real simple if energy is what makes penatration do this simple experiment take a 16 penny nail and try to drive it into a 4 X 4 post with a jewelers hammer, you'll find that you'll sweat like a bandit and make a ton of noise and you'll probably even make the head of the nail hot now try the same thing with a framing hammer.

It really is simple physics involved you don't need to make it more complicated,
It takes more energy to accelerate a smaller mass to an equal momentum than it does a larger mass hence the reason a 124 gr 9mm will use more powder than a 147 and will require more pressure to make equal momentum 124+p will get close to the momentum of 147 std pressure rounds they'll also make more noise, so guess what happens as they slow down, that's right they make more pressure more heat and more noise but the momentum remains the same

 

[JohnKSa]

Energy isn't what moves stuff inertia is...

It takes more energy to accelerate a smaller mass to an equal momentum than it does a larger mass...

These two statements directly contradict each other.

Energy is clearly what moves things, in fact, energy is essentially force applied over a distance. In other words, kinetic energy is the measure of how much force it takes to get a given amount of mass moving at a specific velocity over a given amount of acceleration distance, or, conversely, how much force will be required to stop a given amount of mass moving at a specific velocity, over a given amount of deceleration distance.

Inertia is the property of a moving object to remain in motion and to resist changing direction and the property of a non-moving object to remain at rest. Energy is what is expended to create movement and therefore momentum. It is also what is expended to eliminate movement. The force a projectile expends on a target medium in the process of being decelerated over a given distance is the energy of the object times the distance over which the deceleration took place.

...energy is what... stretches stuff...

It is what stretches/deforms things. Which is precisely why it affects expansion of the bullet since deformation and expansion are the same thing.

It takes more energy to accelerate a smaller mass to an equal momentum than it does a larger mass hence the reason a 124 gr 9mm will use more powder than a 147 and will require more pressure to make equal momentum 124+p will get close to the momentum of 147 std pressure rounds they'll also make more noise, so guess what happens as they slow down, that's right they make more pressure more heat and more noise but the momentum remains the same.

It is true that it takes more energy to get a light object moving at a given momentum than it takes to get a heavier object to that same momentum, but your attempt to extrapolate that fact into a practical application of ballistics falls short.

For one thing, it's not just that more heat and noise is generated, it also means that if they both stop in the same distance, more force will be expended on the target medium by a light object moving at a given momentum than will be expended on the target medium by a heavier object moving at that same momentum. That means that assuming both objects decelerate to a stop in the same distance, at the same momentum, the lighter object (the one with more energy) has the potential to apply more force to the target medium and therefore do more damage.

Real simple if energy is what makes penatration do this simple experiment take a 16 penny nail and try to drive it into a 4 X 4 post with a jewelers hammer, you'll find that you'll sweat like a bandit and make a ton of noise and you'll probably even make the head of the nail hot now try the same thing with a framing hammer.

This is a poor analogy and only makes sense to people who haven't actually run the numbers.

It's typically used to imply that the light hammer has more energy and yet is less effective at driving nails.

The fact is that both momentum AND energy are typically lower with a small, light hammer. One would need to get a jeweler's hammer's 4 oz head moving at two and a half times the speed of a 25 oz framing hammer's head just to get the energies equal.

That would require an angular swing velocity around three times faster for the jeweler's hammer given the shorter handles on small, light hammers. That's just to get the energies equal--an even faster swing would be required to get more energy in the light hammer head. While one can swing a light hammer somewhat faster than a heavy one, increasing swing speed by 3 times or more isn't likely at all. In other words, the example is a great way to show that with reduced momentum AND reduced energy it's harder to drive nails.

That said, if one actually COULD get the head of the light hammer moving fast enough to exceed the energy of the heavier one, basic physics tells us it would require more force to stop the lighter hammer head (the one with more energy) in a given amount of distance. That's the same thing as saying it would be more effective at driving nails than the one with less energy.

So why aren't hammers super light so you can swing them super fast? There's a practical limit on the maximum velocity one can swing a hammer accurately, and given that practical limit, if one wants to increase the energy of the hammer, the only effective way to do it, after a point, is to increase the mass of the hammer head.

 

[mavracer]

These two statements directly contradict each other.

Sorry my lack of an urge to type has left you again with more ammo to attack my grammar. I've got some time to waste now trying to educate you on the practical applications of energy and inertia.

In the first statement I was referring to kinetic energy which is in fact not what moves stuff but in fact just a property of an object which is already moving.
In the second I was referring to the other types of energy which must be converted in order to accelerate the mass and convert the other types of energy into kinetic.

And again kinetic energy is a property of inertia not the other way around.

the lighter object (the one with more energy) has the potential to apply more force to the target medium and therefore do more damage.

Yes, but it's in the form of heat and pressure(temporary wound channel) not penetration as the inertia is the same for both.
Energy was taken out of the equation for the permanent wound channel with it's definition that it's only the stuff that's directly in the path which is moved and inertia is what does that.

This is a poor analogy and only makes sense to people who haven't actually run the numbers.

Again with the "It supports inertia, it's bad" argument.

It's actually quite easy to show when you run the numbers and work with the folks in a aircraft testing lab. The reality is that in order to drive the nail to an equal depth with a 4oz hammer as a 24oz hammer (#s work better and never seen a 25oz hammer anyhow) you actually have to swing it 6X faster so that momentum is the same. You're 2.5X making energy equal theory is gonna do exactly what I said leave you sweating profusely making a bunch of noise with a nail sticking out of the wood.

 

[B.L.E.]

Comparing heavy vs light hammers, we do a lot of mechanical disassembly that sometimes requires a hammer to break things apart, a heavy sledge hammer swung gently will move something without damaging it but using a light hammer swung fast is almost guaranteed to break cast iron parts or peen over the end of a shaft without actually moving the part like you intended.

If you go to the extreme and try to drive the nail with a super light pellet driven at meteorite speeds by one of NASA's light gas guns, you will likely destroy the nail without driving it into the board.

Google NASA light gas gun (30,000 fps) and look at some of the impact photos.

 

[JohnKSa]

Sorry my lack of an urge to type has left you again with more ammo to attack my grammar. I've got some time to waste now trying to educate you on the practical applications of energy and inertia.

Come on. You can't keep pretending that the problem is typos or carelessness when you repeatedly make statements that are obviously in error and that make it plain that there's a problem with the foundation you're working from.

In the first statement I was referring to kinetic energy which is in fact not what moves stuff but in fact just a property of an object which is already moving.

It is both the property of a moving object and it can and does move things.

And again kinetic energy is a property of inertia not the other way around.

Kinetic energy and inertia/momentum are both properties of moving objects. Neither one is a property of the other. It's statements like these that make it clear that you could benefit from some study on the topic of the basic physics of moving objects.

Energy was taken out of the equation for the permanent wound channel with it's definition that it's only the stuff that's directly in the path which is moved and inertia is what does that.

Since energy affects the expansion of the bullet and that affects the size of the permanent wound channel and the resistance that the bullet encounters during penetration, it affects the wound channel in two ways.

Again with the "It supports inertia, it's bad" argument.

That's a gross mischaracterization of the detailed explanation I provided as to why it's a poor analogy.

It's actually quite easy to show when you run the numbers and work with the folks in a aircraft testing lab. The reality is that in order to drive the nail to an equal depth with a 4oz hammer as a 24oz hammer (#s work better and never seen a 25oz hammer anyhow) you actually have to swing it 6X faster so that momentum is the same.

If it's easy to show, then show it. It will be interesting to see how the experiment is set up and carried out.

You'll notice that I don't say the results will be interesting because they're already a given.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/momentum.html

"Energy is the ability to do work.

For example, it takes work to drive a nail into a piece of wood---a force has to push the nail a certain distance, against the resistance of the wood. A moving hammer, hitting the nail, can drive it in. A stationary hammer placed on the nail does nothing. The moving hammer has energy---the ability to drive the nail in---because it's moving. This hammer energy is called "kinetic energy". Kinetic is just the Greek word for motion, it's the root word for cinema, meaning movies."​

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-1/Mechanical-Energy

A hammer is a tool that utilizes mechanical energy to do work. The mechanical energy of a hammer gives the hammer its ability to apply a force to a nail in order to cause it to be displaced. Because the hammer has mechanical energy (in the form of kinetic energy), it is able to do work on the nail. Mechanical energy is the ability to do work.​

http://www.wolaver.org/teaching/Chapter_5.pdf

The total kinetic energy the hammer has when it strikes the nail is equal to the work done on it:
EK = W = 5 ft-lb.
If it takes Fn = 48 lb of force to move the nail, how far dn will the hammer with kinetic energy
EK = 5 ft-lb drive the nail? The work Wn it does on the nail equals EK:​

...a heavy sledge hammer swung gently will move something without damaging it but using a light hammer swung fast is almost guaranteed to break cast iron parts or peen over the end of a shaft without actually moving the part like you intended.

Correct. Another reason to keep the swing velocity moderate. If the force applied exceeds the material properties of the hammer head or the item being struck then deformation/damage will result rather than the desired effect.

 

[mavracer]

Since energy affects the expansion of the bullet and that affects the size of the permanent wound channel and the resistance that the bullet encounters during penetration, it affects the wound channel in two ways.

Ok this is getting tiresome, if kinetic energy is responsible for the diameter of the expanded bullet what kind of energy is the expanded bullet?

The total kinetic energy the hammer has when it strikes the nail is equal to the work done on it:
EK = W = 5 ft-lb.
If it takes Fn = 48 lb of force to move the nail, how far dn will the hammer with kinetic energy
EK = 5 ft-lb drive the nail? The work Wn it does on the nail equals EK:

That's all fine and dandy until 48 ft lbs of energy doesn't move the nail when the hammer is too light.
In the words of Yogi Berra " In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they ain't"

 

[JohnKSa]

In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they ain't"

First of all, the basic physics of moving objects is well past the theory stage.

Second, if you don't believe that science provides practical insight then what possible use could there be in attempting to convince people that you understand science or in attempting to explain science to them?

Third, how do you expect to be taken seriously when you disparage the results that physics provide while simultaneously claiming that you have mastered the topic?

...if kinetic energy is responsible for the diameter of the expanded bullet what kind of energy is the expanded bullet?

I gather from this that you are trying to say that if energy was expended in deforming the bullet that there must be some energy left in the bullet somehow. Again, it is this kind of thing that makes it clear that your understanding of basic physics is badly flawed and/or incomplete.

There is nothing in physics that suggests that an object permanently deformed by the application of energy must somehow be left permanently imbued with energy.

Don't take my word for ANY of this. Do the study yourself using the many authoritative sources readily available on the internet. There is absolutely no reason for you to remain deficient on this subject if it interests you.

 

[B.L.E.]

In my experience in killing varmint animals mostly, I have learned that velocity counts, and in order to have velocity, you need energy.
Shooting things like armadillos with heavy 240 grain .44 special bullets traveling at 700 fps or so results in penetration, however the critter usually runs off wounded to die in a burrow somewhere much later, you might as well have shot it with a target arrow.
Shooting it with lighter higher velocity bullets, say 180 grain .44 bullets going around 1200 fps makes the critter die in its tracks. Shoot it with a 180 grain .44 magnum bullet out of a rifle and you literally make the critter explode.