Please stop with the 'ENERGY' BS

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WESHOOT2

New member
Energy is not a critical (or even mildly important) factor in defense handgun ammo. I wish folks would have a better understanding of that fact.

Caliber, velocity, bullet construction, bullet weight, and their launch platforms are factors that we discuss. Energy is only a mathematic result; your actual field results will be based on everything BUT energy.

Energy is not valid as a caliber comparator. It just is...

Hey! Let's talk about 'momentum'...


------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
You recommend 9 mm 115 gr +P/+P+ for defense in multiple posts, yet claim that energy has nothing to do with it? That's inconsistent, since the major difference between reg. 9 mm and +P is the velocity, and thus the energy.
 
Technically, you are correct.

For the sake of clarity in these discussions, please refer to it as "velocity".
Just for me.

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
If only velocity counts, we would all be dead from being struck by -- LIGHT! At 186,000 miles per second, there is, Mr. Einstein said, no higher velocity.

Jim
 
I should add:


If two bullets of the same weight and velocity but different construction (you know, like a R-P 115g JHP and a W-W 115g FMJ-RN) strike the same target is the 'energy' the same?

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
Jim,

recent discovery proves Einstein was wrong...


-------------------------------------------

"all my energy is FTL energy"
 
I assume by "energy" you mean kinetic energy. Two identical masses moving at the same speed will have the same amount of kinetic energy. This is just simple physics.

It is definitely true that a projectile's speed, and therefore energy, are not the only factors in determining a bullet's effectiveness. There are other, more relevant factors such as shot placement, eneergy released into the target, momentum transferred to the target, emotional/mental state of the target, bullet design, etc.

Personally, I tend to be in the camp that beleives that the more kinteic energy that gets transferred to the target, the better. This usually causes me to pick medium or light weight JHPs that expand or fragment and therefore release most of their kinetic energy into the target.
 
You guys can cite "energy transfer" or "energy dumps" all you want; a bullet's energy (kinetic energy) is NOT a very important indicator of the bullet's effectiveness. By effectiveness I mean wound trauma incapacitation (thank you Mr. MacPherson). Energy is mostly a factor of velocity.

The "effective" bullet will travel at the velocity for which it was designed, penetrate sufficiently, and HIT something vital (over which the bullet has little say).

When selecting a carry load, I look at gelatin data (clothed/bare/barrier)as indicators of a bullets performance potential.
 
I'm with ya, sorta.

Energy does seem related to stretch cavities, and some people think they matter (INS/BP)even at handgun velocities, some do not (FBI).

I look at the gel profiles, use the stretch/energy a a tie breaker when pen/exp are the same/close.

For example, the Fed 135 PDA does 11.5/.72 bare gel and 14.5/.60 after cloth. The 147 HS about 13/.62 and 15/.57. Pretty close, the PDA has more energy/stretch.

BTW, the Fed 115 +P+ does about 11.25/.53
and 10.6/.62. Less pen/exp than either, but way more energy/stretch. Is it better, or worse than the 135/147?

The Speer 357SIG 125 GD does about the same as the 9mm 124 +P GD after cloth: 17-20/.52-.54. Does all that extra energy/stretch make the 357 better? Some think so.

Is 17.5/.52 (357SIG) better than 15/.57 (147/9mm) or 14.5/.60 (135/9mm) as far as pen/exp?

Is the 125/38 at 12/.53 and 13.6/.43 as good/better than the 125 Magnun at 10.6/.49 and 11.7/.51? The 147/38 at 14/.59 better than the 145 Magnum at 12.9/.64?

Round n round we go...

------------------
>>>>----> http://home.att.net/~brokenarrrow/

[This message has been edited by BrokenArrow (edited September 05, 2000).]
 
High levels of energy transfer most assuredly does matter in rifles. We can certainly achieve 22 Hornet type velocities in belt pistols, with even heavier bullets than the 45 gr slug that the Hornet uses. You are just stuck with the idea that pistols can't exceed 1600 fps. That is untrue. The 357 Sig can get a 60 gr slug to 2300 fps. The 460 Rowland can drive 70 grs to 2400 fps. Out at the ranges where the Hornet built its rep as a varmint load. (75-100m) its original 2650 fps is down to 2300 fps, so up close where it is used, the pistol can match say, 7.62 muzzle velocities, and greatly exceed the velocities that say, a 30-30 has left at the 150 yds at which many think it still adequate. If we really DID need 12 ga slug type momentum to reliably (say 9 times out of 10 shootings) to down men, it would be pointless to shoot them with a 357, now, WOULDN'T it? Yet the 125 gr 357 JHP DOES suffice on men most of the time. Dogs need shooting more often than men do, because they attack people, stock, and pets. Goats and deer do not, so the carry gun's performance on dogs, IS relevant, and what it does on deer or goats is not. On dogs, the 230 gr .45 fails miserably. The .22 Hornet, on the other hand, does fine(to 75 m or so.) Yet the .45 has 4x the frontal area of the .22 and 50% more momentum. Do you think that the dog KNOWS that he has been shot with a RIFLE, and falls down accordingly? :-) At speeds above 2000 fps, the temporary cavity IS capable of damaging tissue that the slug never actually touched. Especially if that tissue has been weakened by multiple perforations of a pre frag. The 3 segment slug that I use is the best answer. It penetrates much better than the birdshot prefrags.
 
If a Lead Roundnose and a JHP both his a solid steel target, the energy produced upon that target should be about the same. The difference is in the MEDIUM of the target being shot. A Lead RN might go right through us, where a JHP might stop and transfer more of it's "energy" ;) into the target because if it's greater deceleration.

It has a LOT to do with the composition of the target. And what's all this talk about shooting dogs? Why not use cats as a better example?

Ben
------------------
Almost Online IM: BenK911
ICQ # 53788523
"Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target" http://ben.gunsnet.net


[This message has been edited by Ben (edited September 05, 2000).]
 
WESHOOT2,

A bit off topic but could you please inform me what recent "discovery" has proved Einstein's wrong? You haven't, by any chance read about it in "Enquirer", have you? Thanks.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WESHOOT2:
Jim,

recent discovery proves Einstein was wrong...

[/quote]

Oh really, Would you please elucidate. Give citiations to the literature.



------------------
Yeah, I got a permit to carry,it's called the friggin Constitution.---Ted Nugent

"Glock 26: 17 rounds of concealed carry DEATH comming your way from out of nowhere!!! THAT'S FIREPOWER, BABY!!!"
 
This is not fact because I can't source it right now, but I could swear I read this year that scientists in some physics lab had discovered that, given the right circumstances, atoms of a certain element could be forced to accelerate beyond the speed of light. I remember it because they felt it necessary to add that this did not mean they could make the particles go back in time. How in the world that was possible or could be measured, I don't know, but that's what was claimed.
 
We're leaving the original energy topic, but what the heck. Besides you're getting into my world now.

A recent experiment at Princeton showed that under certain circumstances the wave group of light can exceed the wave phase velocity by as much as 300 times (the wave group travels 300 times faster than the SOL). Normally the wave group will travel slower than the phase velocity - this is what causes refraction. The element they used in the experiment was Cesium, it may be possible to attain the same result other rare earth elements. This may turn out to be another "cold fusion" hoopla, time will tell.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Don Gwinn:
This is not fact because I can't source it right now, but I could swear I read this year that scientists in some physics lab had discovered that, given the right circumstances, atoms of a certain element could be forced to accelerate beyond the speed of light. I remember it because they felt it necessary to add that this did not mean they could make the particles go back in time. How in the world that was possible or could be measured, I don't know, but that's what was claimed.[/quote]

It's been theorized that there are entire families of particles that exist only above the speed of light. The recent findings may or may not be related to that.

If I remember correctly, one of the problems with being able to travel faster than the speed of light is that the faster an object goes, the greater its mass becomes. Theoretically, once an object reaches the speed of light (or just short of it), its mass becomes infinite, and the amount of energy needed to increase its speed (velocity?) also becomes infinite.

Apparently where the break with Einstein's theory comes is that these particles don't have any mass to speak of.

In that sense, Einstein was wrong in the same way that Galielo was wrong when he said our solar system comprised 5 planets.

Advances in the science essentially proved the validity of his work, but expanded on it. That expansion doesn't make him, or Einstein, wrong.

Finally, I'm not certain, but I don't think that Einstein ever said that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. I think others said that based on his work.

Wow, my years of back issues of National Geographics finally had some value!

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Don Gwinn:
This is not fact because I can't source it right now, but I could swear I read this year that scientists in some physics lab had discovered that, given the right circumstances, atoms of a certain element could be forced to accelerate beyond the speed of light.[/quote]

There is also considerable debate as to the methods they used to determine this "fact", so I wouldn't put Einstein out to pasture just yet. :-)
 
WESHOOT2

[Insult removed by moderator/OV] Energy is the single most important factor behind bullet design in decinding stopping power period. You have been in the fackler lie camp to long. If energy did not matter a 45 acp would be a better stopper than a 223 rifle. We all know thats bull crap. The stuff the IWBA boys come up with never ceases to amaze me.
PAT

------------------
I intend to go into harms way.

[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited September 06, 2000).]
 
Penetration is good. Expansion is good. Each require energy. Mass times velocity squared = energy.

I like the best of both, one of many fine loads for the .357mag puts 158gr out of 3-5/8 bbl at bout 1300fps. Great penetration and great expansion. Requires ENERGY to get good stopping. Expansion difference tween JHC, SWC and round nose with that load negligable, all three go to bout .60-.70.

Critical velocity seems to be bout 1200fps, above that and bullet design doesn't seem to matter much, they all expand.....exception being thicker jacket of rifle bullets.

Sam...my favorite 9mm is the 9X32R
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top