Mass vs. Energy

[USSR]

.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.

C'mon Kirosha. Everybody knows that a high velocity 300 grain load is not a typical .45 Colt load. Let's compare typical loads for each cartridge that someone is likely to buy at their LGS and shoot. Winchester manufactured .357 Magnum 158 grain bullet, 1235fps, and 535 fp of energy. Winchester manufactured .45 Colt 255 grain bullet, 860fps, and 420 fp of energy. While I'm all for bumping up the velocity of the .45 Colt and do, even when you match the energy levels to each other, the larger hole the .45 Colt puts in game animals has a bigger impact.

Don

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well USSR, you challeged and set the parameters of the challenge...

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.

He did. Now you are balking because you don't like the fact that after checking the charts, Kirosha beat you in the challenge. You don't get to narrow the parameters of the challenge after you get beat in the challenge where YOU set the parameters, LOL.

 

[USSR]

Evidently you can't read Double_Naught_Spy, so I will quote it for you: "unless you are talking about Ruger-only loads", which was made before his statement of "180 grain .357 producing 524 ft lbs
300 grain .45 colt producing over twice that". So, a .45 Colt load producing over 1,000 fp of energy is by it's definition a Ruger-only load. Reading is fundamental.

Don

 

[Kirosha]

C'mon Kirosha. Everybody knows that a high velocity 300 grain load is not a typical .45 Colt load. Let's compare typical loads for each cartridge that someone is likely to buy at their LGS and shoot. Winchester manufactured .357 Magnum 158 grain bullet, 1235fps, and 535 fp of energy. Winchester manufactured .45 Colt 255 grain bullet, 860fps, and 420 fp of energy. While I'm all for bumping up the velocity of the .45 Colt and do, even when you match the energy levels to each other, the larger hole the .45 Colt puts in game animals has a bigger impact.

Don

Yes, but I can buy the 300 gr +P ammunition easily. I'll admit that it isn't common but trying to debate muzzle energy vs mass between two very capable rounds requires a bit of a stretch anyways.

We can both agree that both rounds can and will drop a target. You believe the size of the hole matters and I believe the energy put in the target matters.

There is no way to test this or prove the argument outside of numbers which hole size doesn't have scientific data on. Real world experience can be iffy due to taking Target A v Target B there is no exact copy. A could be sick, B could have weak bones.

Ballistics gel won't tell you how a real target will react to getting shot with anything...cause deer surely still gallop away despite that gel implying it should drop instantly.

I think the best representation I can show about energy is this video. NSFW

 

[5whiskey]

The Cor-Bon and Double Tap .45 colt loads that produce 1,000 ft/lbs are not real, traditional .45 colt loads. They are "Ruger Only." Read the disclaimer from MidwayUSA...

Cor-Bon advises that this ammunition should only be used in guns which are also available in 44 Magnum and is not to be used in Colt S.A.A. or replicas. Anyone unsure should call Cor-Bon at (605) 347-4544.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/5...olt-p-300-grain-jacketed-soft-point-box-of-20


So yes, USSR's caveat stands. And no, as a handloader I know that .45 Colt isn't in an energy class above .357 magnum unless it's loaded special for use in large frame revolvers. These loadings exceed the SAAMI specs for original .45 Colt.

As to the overall debate... Momentum matters too. Momentum favors weight, K/E favors velocity. Momentum isn't the be-all end all. But it matters and frequently isn't discussed. It's the reason why the extreme example of 45-70 vs .22-250 means something. One is good for taking elk and bear, one is not, despite the same energy. That being said it's still not an apples/apples comparison. What's best suited for a thick elk doesn't equate to what may be best for S/D against 2 legged predators. None-the-less, momentum factors in the equation.

 

[44 AMP]

mass without velocity has only potential energy.

Is it even possible to have velocity without mass??? I don't think current science allows for that, as they tell us even light has mass. Not very much, or we couldn't call it "light"...

 

[Ruger45LC]

Energy is just a calculation, a number on paper (or if you prefer, on the screen). It doesn't tell the whole tale and isn't a good indicator of how effective something is or isn't simply because there are too many variables on both end of the bullet.

Placement, penetration and mindset are tops, but it's hard to argue that bigger holes aren't, at least in theory, better but at the same time it doesn't mean that smaller bullets aren't effective.

Ballistics, although seemingly simple, are really quite complex and when you start overthinking it, there's when problems arise. Maybe it's best to keep it simple!

 

[TXAZ]

mass without velocity has only potential energy.

Is it even possible to have velocity without mass???

Sure. What's the mass of an EM (electro-magnetic) wave? It's not even a photon, it's acts like a wave hence the name.

What's the velocity of an EM wave? It's usually a very large fraction of the speed of light.

mass without velocity has only potential energy.
I don't think current science allows for that, as they tell us even light has mass.

Are we talking Newtonian, Quantum or some other frame of reference?
And E=mc^2 is only an approximate model. Who knows the the 10th order differential model is in reality.

Not very much, or we couldn't call it "light"...:

Ha ha ha. Can I use that in my next semesters class?

 

[Ledslnger]

With new bullet technology the 9mm really performs. That’s why organizations are gravitating back to it.

https://www.lehighdefense.com/produ...reme-penetrator-ammunition?variant=1066222584

 

[Nanuk]

With new bullet technology the 9mm really performs.

With old tech magnums really perform, that is why I use them as a retired cop.

 

[Nanuk]

.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.

You can cherry pick all day. 45 Colt VS 357 magnum is not really a fair comparison.

https://www.underwoodammo.com/colle...d-jacketed-hollow-point?variant=7865902923833

https://www.underwoodammo.com/colle...p-jacketed-hollow-point?variant=7865921667129

Lets add a 44 magnum and see where we go.

https://www.underwoodammo.com/colle...n-jacketed-hollow-point?variant=7865918423097

You really need to tailor the round to the application.

 

[B.L.E.]

What's the velocity of an EM wave? It's usually a very large fraction of the speed of light.

I always thought that an electromagnetic wave WAS light, unless the term "light" is reserved for the visible part of the EM spectrum, but even then we say "infrared light" and "ultraviolet light" even though we can't see it with our eyes.

 

[TXAZ]

I always thought that an electromagnetic wave WAS light, unless the term "light" is reserved for the visible part of the EM spectrum, but even then we say "infrared light" and "ultraviolet light" even though we can't see it with our eyes.

They are not the same thing. The velocity of an EM wave (HF, VHF, UHF, etc) is a function of the medium it traverses. The way engineers deal with that is to apply a "Velocity Factor" for the particular medium the wave is traveling in. So while an EM wave may travel very close to c in a vacuum (and most atmospheres), it may only travel at 80% of c in a particular wire or coax cable. So the 'speed of light' for a particular EM wave through a coax is vc where v is 80% in this example and c is the speed of light.
There are even some special cells where the speed of (real) light is less than 40 mph.

(But I'd still rather be in a collision with a 40 ton truck with 1000 ft-lbs of energy than hit by 1000 ft-lbs of electrons.)

 

[JohnKSa]

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.

If the discussion were couched in purely theoretical terms, that would make sense. The OP clearly states that the context is "a defensive situation" which makes the discussion practical, not theoretical.

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.

I'm well aware of the S&W model 69 and its weight and size, in fact I owned one for awhile. Nice revolver, but even if I still had it, I wouldn't choose it as either a carry or a nightstand gun. I have other guns that have more than adequate power, a lot more capacity and better shootability.

Capacity is a non issue if have means of rapid reloads available and are a master of your revolver.

There are certainly people who can reload a revolver very rapidly. But no matter how good they are, it's faster to pull the trigger on the next round in the magazine while the revolver master reloads. And when it's time for the revolver master to reload a second time, it's faster to repeat the trigger pull again because the magazine still won't be empty at that point.

Not only that, when I reach for my nightstand gun, there's a good chance I'm not wearing a belt with two reloads on it. Capacity is pretty nice in that situation.

The only situation I personally see where a hi cap 9mm...

I didn't say anything about 9mm. My nightstand gun is a 10mm, for whatever it's worth--not that I would have a problem with replacing it with a 9mm.

The guys that spank me @ 3 yards on multiple targets can't hit the target past 15 yards.

It's a mistake to assume that someone who can shoot fast can't also shoot at distance. Awhile back I took a class where one of the students outshot all the others for speed and accuracy up close. He was also the only student in the class to make a first round hit on a bowling pin set at 50 yards. Coincidentally, he was shooting a 10mm.

 

[DaleA]

Not to nitpick too much but post #64 has a link to a Youtube video that claims a near miss with a .50 BMG killed a deer.

"Unbelievable .50 BMG Whitetail Deer Hunt at Legends Ranch"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P3uwl5HzzQ&feature=youtu.be&t=170

I think this claim has been debunked. At least this guy thinks so and I'm inclined to agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrHpe5Z93wM&t=317s

 

[B.L.E.]

(But I'd still rather be in a collision with a 40 ton truck with 1000 ft-lbs of energy than hit by 1000 ft-lbs of electrons.)

A 40 ton projectile would have to be traveling 0.61 mph in order to have 1000 ft-lb of KE. It would likely just harmlessly push you out of its way.

 

[Kirosha]

I think this claim has been debunked. At least this guy thinks so and I'm inclined to agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrHpe5Z93wM&t=317s

I'd argue that a drone and plastic don't compare to soft tissue and all but I don't shoot .50 BMG, don't kill deer when I miss, or go for head shots on deer. If it is fake, it is only a representation of what I mean by energy on target.

I guess I will have to instead go with ballistics gel. The round enters target and creates a permanent wound cavity. The larger temporary wound cavity made is my justification of energy over mass.

I've also never shot ballistics gel. My opinion is in no ways fact.

I think we are getting to beating a dead horse with this. There is no definitive proof stated in this thread for either mass or energy, just opinions.

 

[TXAZ]

.50 BMG & shockwave

Not to nitpick too much but post #64 has a link to a Youtube video that claims a near miss with a .50 BMG killed a deer.

"Unbelievable .50 BMG Whitetail Deer Hunt at Legends Ranch"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P3uwl5HzzQ&feature=youtu.be&t=170

I think this claim has been debunked. At least this guy thinks so and I'm inclined to agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrHpe5Z93wM&t=317s

It has been totally debunked. The bullet went through the eye which was the spray in the video.

I shoot a lot of .50 BMG, and seen someone get (almost) too close to the muzzle on firing.
Other than some very unpleasant hot gas getting very close (and an ear problem), their arm didn't come off and skin remained intact.
I'll post a picture of the gas if that helps.

Here's a link to the pic:
https://i.imgur.com/p0EBbQy.mp4
There's a shockwave, on a really good monitor you can see it, but look at the shaking of the shooting mat. If a .50 BMG had enough energy in the shock wave to take off an arm or kill by (non contact) concussion, it would easily tear off the front of the shooting pad. (But the gas does a great job of clearing weeds)

 

[44 AMP]

I have been blown off the turret of an M60 tank by the blast from a 105mm main gun, (and, the sob was firing Sabot!!)

compared to that, a .50BMG isn't so much.

Some years ago, there was a rifle called the Desert Rhino. .50 BMG and a 16" barrel with a HUGE muzzle brake. The writer said that while recoil was ..tolerable..what bothered him most was the 3rd shot cracked his shooting glasses from the blast.

kill a deer with a .50 BMG slug without hitting the deer? No.

kill a squirrel with a "near miss", possible. My grandfather taught me how to "bark" squirrels with a 12ga. It does work, kill's 'em DRT.

Shot at a ground squirrel once with a .45ACP. Missed him, hit the rock he was on, he flew about a dozen yards in the air, landed dead. Small animals can be killed from a near (enough) miss. Larger ones, no, ain't happening.

There was a GI in WWII (battle of the bulge if I remember right) was grazed on the neck by an 88mm round from a Tiger tank. Messed him up, but he survived.