Model12Win
Moderator
Compare reports from the Great War to today's current conflict in Iraq.
Real world results speak for themselves.
Real world results speak for themselves.
Mass vs. Energy
- Thread starter MINSH101
- Start date
John Linebaugh, the custom big bore creator, has a comparison of the two on his web site (I think he passed away,not sure)
Taylor KO formula results...hand loads in Blackhawk, Freedom Arms, etc. SA revolvers;
.430 X 240 X 1400 - 20.6 KO.....44 Mag
.452 X 260 X 1400 - 23.3-KO.....45 Colt
...as was stated above, picking' nits but the article is a long one with a lot of info on these chamberings and re-loading advice, including a lot practical experience.
John Wooters once wrote an article where he claimed that the 45 Colt, in factory guise, was an excellent big game getter as is, without pushing the envelope. This in Colt SA Army and similar revolvers including DA Smith revolvers.
Taylor KO formula results...hand loads in Blackhawk, Freedom Arms, etc. SA revolvers;
.430 X 240 X 1400 - 20.6 KO.....44 Mag
.452 X 260 X 1400 - 23.3-KO.....45 Colt
...as was stated above, picking' nits but the article is a long one with a lot of info on these chamberings and re-loading advice, including a lot practical experience.
John Wooters once wrote an article where he claimed that the 45 Colt, in factory guise, was an excellent big game getter as is, without pushing the envelope. This in Colt SA Army and similar revolvers including DA Smith revolvers.
Me too...and placement trumps everything. I sometimes think we get wrapped around the handle attempting to make mathematical models which will predict, even partially, gunshot effectiveness. There are just too many variables involved IMHO, for me to trust any that I've studied...but a bullet, damned near any bullet, placed in the critical CNS or major artery/heart zones will do the job. Rod
Last edited:
Energy and momentum are mathematical calculations smart men have derived to describe and predict how physical object behave. Both energy and momentum calculations include mass as a factor. The Taylor Knock Out Factor is a modification to the momentum calculation with a factor for bullet diameter added in an attempt to better predict a cartridges killing effectiveness on game. Which of those calculations (or any others) best represent the effectiveness of cartridges will be forever debated.
One thing to keep in mind with expanding projectiles is that expansion uses up some of the bullet's energy. This perhaps explains to a large degree why non-expanding cast bullets perform very well in the area of penetration.
One thing to keep in mind with expanding projectiles is that expansion uses up some of the bullet's energy. This perhaps explains to a large degree why non-expanding cast bullets perform very well in the area of penetration.
Terminal ballistics is a pretty exact science and what it comes down to in the end is mass x velocity. A cargo ship in the water moving at 2 mph can destroy a small sailboat. A .22 caliber bullet moving at 2,200 fps can't do that much damage but it can bring down a deer.
Scaling down, a smaller bullet moving faster is preferred if you want penetration but a bigger bullet moving slowly is preferred if you want to deliver a lot of energy into the target.
You can use the same weight bullet in .44 magnum and .45 Colt so the only thing left as a variable between the two is velocity which you can tune up to make the two rounds match. Shoot both through a chronometer and if two bullets with the same mass are traveling at the same velocity, terminal ballistics can be expected to be identical, regardless of what gun fired them.
Your only real answer in any case comes down the what variables you can control and to what degree you can control them. Control bullet weight, control speed and you can get pretty much what you want out of either.
I've always thought the .44 magnum could be loaded to higher pressures, though, so if you're looking to maximize your mass x velocity equation, I think you need to go with the .44 magnum.
--Wag--
Scaling down, a smaller bullet moving faster is preferred if you want penetration but a bigger bullet moving slowly is preferred if you want to deliver a lot of energy into the target.
You can use the same weight bullet in .44 magnum and .45 Colt so the only thing left as a variable between the two is velocity which you can tune up to make the two rounds match. Shoot both through a chronometer and if two bullets with the same mass are traveling at the same velocity, terminal ballistics can be expected to be identical, regardless of what gun fired them.
Your only real answer in any case comes down the what variables you can control and to what degree you can control them. Control bullet weight, control speed and you can get pretty much what you want out of either.
I've always thought the .44 magnum could be loaded to higher pressures, though, so if you're looking to maximize your mass x velocity equation, I think you need to go with the .44 magnum.
--Wag--
"In terms of the comparison between bullets of .430" and .450" diameter, I don't think the difference in diameter (4.7%) is worth worrying about."
There's only .002 difference between a 9mm and .357. The result is a larger hole from a .357. Not because of the size of projectiles, but rather the energy. That's the premise of my original post.
There's only .002 difference between a 9mm and .357. The result is a larger hole from a .357. Not because of the size of projectiles, but rather the energy. That's the premise of my original post.
Quote:
Personally, I prefer the Taylor KO formula which includes bullet diameter and doesn't over emphasize velocity as the straight energy formula does. Just MHO.
TKOF = weight x velocity x diameter
Doesn't matter what it was originally designed for, it works just as well for handguns for determining it's effect on living tissue. Oh, and I can't begin to tell you how many things I thoroughly disagree on with a hack like Chuck Hawks.
Don
Personally, I prefer the Taylor KO formula which includes bullet diameter and doesn't over emphasize velocity as the straight energy formula does. Just MHO.
TKOF = weight x velocity x diameter
Doesn't matter what it was originally designed for, it works just as well for handguns for determining it's effect on living tissue. Oh, and I can't begin to tell you how many things I thoroughly disagree on with a hack like Chuck Hawks.
Don
I'd be very interested to do that. What data sources are you using for that comparison? I'm not aware of any reliable/verifiable reports/studies on handgun stopping power from either conflict.
What is the basis for this claim? I've not seen any scientific studies/reports which show good correlation between TKO values and commonly accepted parameters used to measure terminal effects on living tissue.
Informal comparisons of factors such as wound volume do not seem to show any correlation to TKO for common modern long gun calibers--I wouldn't expect it to be any more applicable to modern handgun calibers.
https://www.shootersforum.com/attac...rvey-transitional-kinetic-energy-pg-10-18.doc
15. Correlation of TKO to the permanent wound channel .098 (None)
16. Correlation of TKO to the temporary wound channel .020 (None)
17. Correlation of TKO to the total wound channel .044 (None)
16. Correlation of TKO to the temporary wound channel .020 (None)
17. Correlation of TKO to the total wound channel .044 (None)
Here's a useful quote from Charles Schwartz's book, Quantitative Ammunition Selection:
It is also in serious error to assign dimensionless values obtained from a contrived formula to a specific brand or type of ammunition and assume that similar performance will result in any other shooting irrespective of the inestimable dynamics that comprise these completely independent and tremendously complex events.
The quote is at the end of a chapter which references Hatcher's RSP, but the TKO formula falls into the same general category as Hatcher's formula.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's completely dependent on the design of the projectile, and how well it expands.MINSH101 said:
Then there's also the distinction to be made between the temporary wound channel/cavity and the permanent wound channel/cavity. The former is more dependent on the velocity and energy than the latter. The latter is more dependent on just the size of the bullet, and how well it expands.
Very strange. Why does it bother some of you guys that I prefer to use a different standard for measuring load performance? My personal experience has shown me that the size of the hole put in something has a big impact. I have shot things with smaller caliber rounds at higher velocity that on paper have higher energy values, and found some larger caliber rounds at slower velocities and lower energy values are more effective. For you guys old enough to know, this argument goes back to Elmer and Jack. As for me, I'm firmly on Elmer's side. Measure how you want, no skin off my nose.
Don
Don
Last edited:
You are obviously free to evaluate load performance any way you see fit and I can't see how that would bother anyone--it certainly doesn't bother me.
I was addressing your assertion that the TKO works well for comparing handgun performance. I wondered what you were basing that claim on since it didn't make sense to me.
For example, let's say person X chooses handgun loads based solely on whether the cases are nickel plated. I don't think anyone will be bothered by that personal choice. However if person X takes the next step and makes a public claim that nickel plated cases are a good way to determine the effect of the loading in living tissues, it seems reasonable for someone to ask what the basis for that claim is.
In other words, it's one thing to say "I like handgun loadings with nickel plated cases and that's all I will use." It's quite another to say: "If you want a good way to determine the effect of a loading on living tissue--just look at the cases to see if they're nickel plated." One is a statement of personal preference, the latter is an assertion of fact. The former requires no justification or rationale, the latter, if it is to be taken seriously, needs some sort of factual support.
I feel the same.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Design/application intent often has nothing to do with validity of application. We see this time and time again with all sorts of methods and products designed for one purpose that may or may not even work well for that purpose, but work well for unintended purposes.
TKO has some shortcomings, but casting dispersions on its application just because it was not designed for that isn't valid in and of itself.
Viagra was designed to be a blood pressure medicine, but it is used for something else. Kevlar was designed for the purpose a steel replacement in tires and was never intended to be used for ballistic vests, but there you have it.
Knowledge, tools, products are all often very useful outside or their initial design intent.
I just said that it's not. Twice.
Your preferences are of no consequence to me. Why would they be?
This is, indeed, a statement of preference. However, you will note that I made no comment about your preference and instead referred to the provided rationale which is in error.
I made no comment at all about the fact THAT you prefer the TKO; what I addressed was the claim that the energy formula overemphasizes velocity, which it does not.
In other words, going back to the nickel plated cases example, imagine that a person says: "I prefer handgun loadings with nickel plated cases because they provide superior stopping power." Although that is a statement of preference, it also includes an assertion that nickel plated case loadings provide superior stopping power. A question or comment about the assertion does not imply any concern about the person's preference. It only addresses the assertion of fact made to validate the preference.
There is a difference between saying: "I like beef more than fish." and saying: "I like beef more than fish because beef is healthier than fish.". One is simply a statement of preference. The latter states preference but ALSO makes an assertion of fact to support the preference. If someone asks how the person determined that beef is healthier than fish it does NOT imply that the inquirer must be concerned that the person making the assertion PREFERS beef or is bothered by that statement of preference.
This was the second comment I responded to and it was not a statement of preference, it was a claim that TKO works well for determining the effect of handgun loadings on living tissue. The information I have seen is inconsistent with this claim and therefore I asked what the basis for the claim was to determine if there was additional information I need to look at.
The .44 Mag and 45 Colt are a toss up and depends on the load and gun your using. Equal platforms should allow for equal results and either one will be ahead of .45 ACP as far as bullet weight and velocity goes.
If limited to traditional .45 Colt loads you'll still come out ahead of .45 ACP and .44 Mag will have both beat significantly. .44 Mag has a much higher pressure threshold and the bullet weights are pretty much the same as .45 Colt - 200 to 300 grain bullets will work with either.
If limited to traditional .45 Colt loads you'll still come out ahead of .45 ACP and .44 Mag will have both beat significantly. .44 Mag has a much higher pressure threshold and the bullet weights are pretty much the same as .45 Colt - 200 to 300 grain bullets will work with either.
That is true.
It is also true that many premium self-defense loadings feature nickel-plated cases. So you never know, there might actually be something to the theory...**
** (Not really folks--it's just a joke. I suspect I'm eventually going to regret this attempt at humor.)
It is also true that many premium self-defense loadings feature nickel-plated cases. So you never know, there might actually be something to the theory...**
** (Not really folks--it's just a joke. I suspect I'm eventually going to regret this attempt at humor.)