Model12Win
Moderator
At the end of the day shot placement is key. The mass AND the energy come into play in order to give the ideal PENETRATION READOUT. You have to penetrate to the vitals. Is "both" an answer??
Mass vs. Energy
- Thread starter MINSH101
- Start date
At least both. I'd say that there are many other factors that matter besides mass, energy and penetration. Terminal effect is a very complicated topic. Attempts to boil it down to a single number--or even a handful of numbers--are unlikely to be successful IMO.
But people will keep trying.
Ultimately skill/training/practice are much more important. Unfortunately those things can't be bought in a store or online--they take a lot of work and that makes them a lot less fun to discuss.
But people will keep trying.
Ultimately skill/training/practice are much more important. Unfortunately those things can't be bought in a store or online--they take a lot of work and that makes them a lot less fun to discuss.
My minor in Physics says it’s *Delivered Energy*, which is related to 1/2 MV^2 is more important than mass of the projectile.
A bullet with 1,000 ft lbs of energy that passes thru a target with little delivered energy (such a paper target, or a thin fleshy area) delivers little damage (very few ft lbs) thru energy transfer to the target, while a bullet with the same 1,000 ft lbs of energy which stops inside the target “delivers” all of it’s kinetic energy to the target, likely a devistating wound. )
Now consider an extreme mass hitting the same target, with the same kinetic energy. In this case the mass is an 18 wheeler at 80,000lbs/ 32ft/sec^2, or 2,500 slugs. So for this 18 wheeler to deliver 1,000 ft lbs of energy solve for V, 1,000=1/2 * 2,500 slugs *V^2, or a velocity of .9 ft/ second or about 0.6 mph.
So in this case we show that getting hit by a large truck at less than 1 ft/ second would likely do little damage to the target (game animal, person, whatever) but also would not transfer / deliver all the truck energy to the target.
As an exercise for the reader, how many electrons traveling at .9c does it take to deliver 1,000 ft lbs of energy to a game / human target?
(Hint / cheat: virtually all the 10^22 electrons are delivered energy, and create a very bad prognosis for a DNA based target from the high instaneous energy released. So higher mass isn’t the key.
A bullet with 1,000 ft lbs of energy that passes thru a target with little delivered energy (such a paper target, or a thin fleshy area) delivers little damage (very few ft lbs) thru energy transfer to the target, while a bullet with the same 1,000 ft lbs of energy which stops inside the target “delivers” all of it’s kinetic energy to the target, likely a devistating wound. )
Now consider an extreme mass hitting the same target, with the same kinetic energy. In this case the mass is an 18 wheeler at 80,000lbs/ 32ft/sec^2, or 2,500 slugs. So for this 18 wheeler to deliver 1,000 ft lbs of energy solve for V, 1,000=1/2 * 2,500 slugs *V^2, or a velocity of .9 ft/ second or about 0.6 mph.
So in this case we show that getting hit by a large truck at less than 1 ft/ second would likely do little damage to the target (game animal, person, whatever) but also would not transfer / deliver all the truck energy to the target.
As an exercise for the reader, how many electrons traveling at .9c does it take to deliver 1,000 ft lbs of energy to a game / human target?
(Hint / cheat: virtually all the 10^22 electrons are delivered energy, and create a very bad prognosis for a DNA based target from the high instaneous energy released. So higher mass isn’t the key.
Last edited:
It is, and it isn't. Shot placement ALONE isn't enough. But Shot placement is the foundation needed, and without it, all the other factors together are not enough to ensure success.
A bullet has to hit the right place, but it also has to have the ability to penetrate to (and better, through) the desired spot. Mass and velocity in combination with each other are what accomplish this. Energy is a calculated way of expressing this in uniform units so reasonable comparisons can be made.
Shoot the bad guy with a BB at 600fps. It's going to hurt, but will mostly likely only be a superficial wound. Shoot the bad guy in the same spot with a 260gr .45 slug at 600fps and its going to do significantly more than just hurt...
Shoot the same bad guy (who's getting REALLY tired of this by now
) with that BB at 3000fps and its going to be very penetrative and destructive, though the size of the wound channel will be small diameter.For best effect, ALL the factors need to be in balance, and above certain minimums.
Which is why energy on target trumps diameter of projectile.
.223 will outperform .380
.357 outperforms .45
Due to the greater velocity delivering greater energy on target.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Across the entire spectrum, yes. .50 BMG is generally more lethal than .22 LR or even .22 WMR.USSR said:
But ... this discussion is (or was) limited to comparing .44 Magnum to .45 ACP and .45 Colt. There, the difference in bullet diameter basically disappears compared to the other applicable variables.
Last edited:
When a .177 diameter projectile is traveling close to mach 3, the bow wake in the fluid it's traveling through itself becomes a projectile as it travels sideways from the bullet's path effectively making a hole much larger than the bullet diameter. You can see this in ballistic gel high speed photos.
This does not occur with 600 fps bullets. It's been my experience that shooting amadillos with high mass low velocity .44 mag plinking ammo leaves you with a wounded critter that runs away, you may as well have shot it with a target arrow. Shooting it with light weight high velocity .44 mag ammo makes the critter explode and it definitely doesn't crawl off into its burrow.
In an earlier post I compared the bowling ball to a .22 Swift round, one sends bowling pins flying, the other might tip a pin over, but mostly it destroys the part of the pin in it's path, so what's more important, destroying the target or tipping it over?
There are shooting sports where tipping the target over is more important than destroying the target. Metallic silhouette and bowling pin shoots.
A 405 grain .45-70 has a much better chance of tipping over 500 meter rams than a .220 Swift does even though it may have less energy, and it was pistol silhouette matches that the 300 grain slugs for the .44 magnum were made for.
There are shooting sports where tipping the target over is more important than destroying the target. Metallic silhouette and bowling pin shoots.
A 405 grain .45-70 has a much better chance of tipping over 500 meter rams than a .220 Swift does even though it may have less energy, and it was pistol silhouette matches that the 300 grain slugs for the .44 magnum were made for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by USSR
Ah, .45 ACP maybe, but not the .45 Colt. As witnessed by myself numerous times on live game animals. Hence my personal opinion that the size of the hole is a valid factor in cartridge performance.
First, your analogy of the .50 BMG to .22 LR is not logical. The .50 BMG is substantially larger and at twice the velocity of the .22 LR. Your analogy should have a larger caliber at a slower velocity .vs a smaller caliber at a higher velocity, in which the latter has a higher energy value. Second, I've haven't seen a forum discussion yet that didn't deviate at least a little bit from the OP.
Don
Originally Posted by USSR
Ah, .45 ACP maybe, but not the .45 Colt. As witnessed by myself numerous times on live game animals. Hence my personal opinion that the size of the hole is a valid factor in cartridge performance.
First, your analogy of the .50 BMG to .22 LR is not logical. The .50 BMG is substantially larger and at twice the velocity of the .22 LR. Your analogy should have a larger caliber at a slower velocity .vs a smaller caliber at a higher velocity, in which the latter has a higher energy value. Second, I've haven't seen a forum discussion yet that didn't deviate at least a little bit from the OP.
Don
Interesting and applicable quotes I read in an article by the late Pat Rogers:
June 2017 Swat Magazine
"Carrying a Handgun, Separate Facts From Fallacies"
Pat Rogers
"Eliminate the terms 'stopping power,' 'knock-down power,' and 'hydrostatic shock' from your internal dictionary. They do not apply to what you are carrying."
"All the factors that play into success or failure in a gunfight--type of gun, brand of ammunition, caliber, projectile weight, and muzzle velocity--are distant thirds to technique and mindset."
June 2017 Swat Magazine
"Carrying a Handgun, Separate Facts From Fallacies"
Pat Rogers
"Eliminate the terms 'stopping power,' 'knock-down power,' and 'hydrostatic shock' from your internal dictionary. They do not apply to what you are carrying."
"All the factors that play into success or failure in a gunfight--type of gun, brand of ammunition, caliber, projectile weight, and muzzle velocity--are distant thirds to technique and mindset."
I think everyone who has posted in this topic has already agreed with that, but when it comes to the limitation of mass v energy, which one matters more.
And yet that supports energy more than mass. .45 Colt running a heavier round at a faster velocity. You can't argue .223, a smaller diameter round, lighter mass round, can still outperform a larger diameter, heavier round going slow enough to change the delivered energy.
We are comparing apples to oranges outside of the strict this vs that.
No. Neither one trumps anything, they work together (or not at all).
perhaps its confusing because we've used rifle rounds to illustrate extremes.
handguns don't have as broad a range of variarions, and in many cases, differences while measurable are not terribly significant.
because of the way we calculate things, when you match ONE of the factors across different cartridges, the other factors are not even close to each other.
Take, for instance, a set velocity, lets say 1200fps.
Take a .22cal bullet at 1200fps, a 9mm/357 bullet at 1200, and a .44 bullet at 1200fps. All identical velocity. MUCH different energy, due to the difference in mass.
now the other side of the coin, two very different rounds with the same energy, say a .22-250 and a .45-70, both producing 1600ft/lbs energy.
Mass and velocity are hugely different, energy is the same.
Or the classic (perhaps eternal) debate over 9mm vs .45acp. standard GI loading for both produce the same energy (approx. 360ft/lbs) Bullet mass is different, velocity is different, energy is the same. Which one is better? .45 guys say theirs' is, mass gives then the advantage. 9mm guys say theirs' is, velocity gives them the advantage.
I'd say what is better, or best for a desired purpose depends on more than mass, velocity or energy ALONE. A lot more.
Quote:
Ah, .45 ACP maybe, but not the .45 Colt. As witnessed by myself numerous times on live game animals. Hence my personal opinion that the size of the hole is a valid factor in cartridge performance.
Uh, check your ballistic charts. The .357 Magnum runs much faster and has higher energy levels than the .45 Colt, unless you are talking about Ruger-only loads, which I'm not.
Don
Ah, .45 ACP maybe, but not the .45 Colt. As witnessed by myself numerous times on live game animals. Hence my personal opinion that the size of the hole is a valid factor in cartridge performance.
Uh, check your ballistic charts. The .357 Magnum runs much faster and has higher energy levels than the .45 Colt, unless you are talking about Ruger-only loads, which I'm not.
Don
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Just a suggestion: The pont has been made that it's not just a matter of velicity or energy that affects the effectiveness of a round for "stopping power," it's also a question of energy transfer. Simply stated (although it was stated pretty simply before), take two rounds of the same caliber, same bullet weight, and same velocity. Ine is a full metal jacket, the other is a jacketed hollow point. The FMJ round shoots right through the bad guy, while the JHP stops before it can exit the body cavity. The JHP also expands to almost twice its original diameter, making a much larger wound channel. Which is more effective?
Over the past few weeks, one of our members has been posting the results of testing a number of different cartridges shot into Clear Ballistics Gel, which is a commercially available ballistics gelatin that doesn't melt at room temperature. Since much of the effectiveness of any round is a function of the size of the wound channel it produces, it might be instructive to review the various results this gentleman has kindly provided for our enlightenment and edification.
Over the past few weeks, one of our members has been posting the results of testing a number of different cartridges shot into Clear Ballistics Gel, which is a commercially available ballistics gelatin that doesn't melt at room temperature. Since much of the effectiveness of any round is a function of the size of the wound channel it produces, it might be instructive to review the various results this gentleman has kindly provided for our enlightenment and edification.
That's a question without an answer.
If the mass differs only very slightly and the energy varies a lot, then energy would matter more. If the energy varies only slightly and the mass varies a lot, then the mass would matter more. HOWEVER, in both cases, it's important to understand that just because one parameter matters more that doesn't automatically mean it would be desirable from a defensive standpoint to go with the caliber that has the higher parameter.
I own a .44mag handgun, and from an energy AND mass standpoint, it is in a clearly different class than any of my other handguns. But I don't carry it for self-defense. It's not even my nightstand gun--a situation where its large weight and size are non-issues. The problem is that capacity and shootability aren't there compared to my other handguns in more mainstream defensive calibers.
When I said that terminal effect was very complicated and wasn't going to be boiled down to a handful of numbers, it needs to be understood that the entire, very complicated topic of terminal effect is only one small part of the even more complicated topic of handgun self-defense.
"Micro-focusing" on one or two very basic parameters of terminal effect as if they make a lot of difference in the real world is like arguing about which breed of dog poses a bigger threat to humans when they become rabid. There obviously is a difference, but if the concern is reducing the threat of rabid dogs, there are many other things that are far more important to consider and pretending that it's all about the specific breed just distracts from getting to a real-world practical solution.
John, of all of my 44 mags, the one I carry is a Smith & Wesson model 69. compared to the duty guns some of us carried it is neither that big or that heavy. It is big enough however, that it allows for full control. Loaded properly it is a fine carry gun. The problem is that too many people see the 44 mag as purely or primarily a "hunting" gun and fail to see the adaptability.
Mine has been cut for moon clips, magnums work OK, but 44 Russian cases load like greased lightning. You can load it from mild to wild. I prefer (for SD) a light fast JHP constructed with a thin jacket, my favorite is a Remington. With its thin jacket it almost guarantees limited fragmentation, which aids in energy transfer and reduces the chance for over penetration.
Capacity is a non issue if have means of rapid reloads available and are a master of your revolver. To an extent capacity is a self fulfilling prophecy, the more you have the more you use.
Having been carrying magnum revolvers for decades and seeing many people shot with them I am a believer. The only situation I personally see where a hi cap 9mm would be an advantage is military conflict and a zombie apocalypse. I am too old for one and too sane for the other.
That being said, I shoot IDPA and a semi auto with more capacity allows for faster times. The guys that spank me @ 3 yards on multiple targets can't hit the target past 15 yards.
Mine has been cut for moon clips, magnums work OK, but 44 Russian cases load like greased lightning. You can load it from mild to wild. I prefer (for SD) a light fast JHP constructed with a thin jacket, my favorite is a Remington. With its thin jacket it almost guarantees limited fragmentation, which aids in energy transfer and reduces the chance for over penetration.
Capacity is a non issue if have means of rapid reloads available and are a master of your revolver. To an extent capacity is a self fulfilling prophecy, the more you have the more you use.
Having been carrying magnum revolvers for decades and seeing many people shot with them I am a believer. The only situation I personally see where a hi cap 9mm would be an advantage is military conflict and a zombie apocalypse. I am too old for one and too sane for the other.
That being said, I shoot IDPA and a semi auto with more capacity allows for faster times. The guys that spank me @ 3 yards on multiple targets can't hit the target past 15 yards.
The last 2 posts allow for an even further deviation from the OP: the ability for handloaders to throttle down or boost up cartridges to make them either more manageable or to enhance performance. Then, when you add the ability of casters to cast bullets that are not commercially available and to match the alloy used to the intended pressure/velocity of the load, you open up a whole new can of worms. Some of my favourite loads are loads you can't buy and are rarely if ever written about.
Don
Don
I prefer to watch Paul Harrell comparing the various rounds in his various tests than go strictly by numbers. Significance is in the eye of the beholder and a strict this vs that is going to be opinion over fact regardless. My 2" revolver doesn't compare to a 6".
.45 Colt at a heavier grain shoots slower than .357 but fast enough that the energy is higher than .357
180 grain .357 producing 524 ft lbs
300 grain .45 colt producing over twice that.
But in the context of this OP, which is the greater threat, an English Bulldog or the Cocker spaniel? Yes, there is a whole host of things more than mass v energy but OP wanted to talk about just these two small parts.