sigcurious
New member
Does this assume unobtainium has the same physical properties as lead, minus mass?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Which is more important in ballistics?
- Thread starter IMTHDUKE
- Start date
AB, a 180JHP .44 Magnum at the extreme high end of the velocity band wil have much more energy than a 255gr HC at 1300fps.
It will also come apart immediately upon impacting something tough, such as, say the cartilage around a boar's shoulder. Pushing the round to the point where it can't effectively penetrate is entirely possible if energy beomes the overriding concern.
That doesn't require hip boots or galoshes, just an understanding that there is no "either / or" answer to the OP's question, unless one answers "velocity" in the context of tailoring velocity with platform and bullet to optimize energy, accuracy, and penetration.
Velocity can be optimized for all three effects. Energy can't.
It will also come apart immediately upon impacting something tough, such as, say the cartilage around a boar's shoulder. Pushing the round to the point where it can't effectively penetrate is entirely possible if energy beomes the overriding concern.
That doesn't require hip boots or galoshes, just an understanding that there is no "either / or" answer to the OP's question, unless one answers "velocity" in the context of tailoring velocity with platform and bullet to optimize energy, accuracy, and penetration.
Velocity can be optimized for all three effects. Energy can't.
marine6680
There may be confusion over whether we are talking about "stopping" an aggressor and the damage a bullet does once it reaches it's target. It should be clear to all, and I think it is, that the only thing one can count on at handgun velocities to stop something is a well placed shot to a vital area (rifle velocities too but let's not get off track). The damage done beyond the central wound track from from a 10mm round at 1300 fps, may or may not be of significance but it is secondary.
When you say...
I think their is agreement when we discuss stopping an aggressor or taking game. But to say that does not mean that there is no damage beyond the central wound track. We know that there is. At times this damage can be quite significant. It seems that you may be denying this.
At rifle velocities that damage is greater than at handgun velocities. This is one result of the greater energy transferred (and other factors). This is how we got on this particular aspect of the discussion in the first place.
tipoc
There may be confusion over whether we are talking about "stopping" an aggressor and the damage a bullet does once it reaches it's target. It should be clear to all, and I think it is, that the only thing one can count on at handgun velocities to stop something is a well placed shot to a vital area (rifle velocities too but let's not get off track). The damage done beyond the central wound track from from a 10mm round at 1300 fps, may or may not be of significance but it is secondary.
When you say...
If it isn't reliable... then it can't be relied on nor counted.
I think their is agreement when we discuss stopping an aggressor or taking game. But to say that does not mean that there is no damage beyond the central wound track. We know that there is. At times this damage can be quite significant. It seems that you may be denying this.
At rifle velocities that damage is greater than at handgun velocities. This is one result of the greater energy transferred (and other factors). This is how we got on this particular aspect of the discussion in the first place.
tipoc
Because if otherwise the statement is inaccurate.Then why credit extra damage that is low reliability...
It is inaccurate to say that temporary stretch cavity does not/can not cause permanent damage in tissue because it can be documented that it actually can and does cause permanent damage under the proper circumstances.
It's only a serious problem if the hemorrhaging is sufficient to be a serious problem. There are examples of inelastic tissue that is very vascular tissue in the human body. The spleen, liver, kidneys and the brain are all examples of highly vascular inelastic tissue. These organs can be permanently and catastrophically damaged by temporary stretch, even when only handgun bullets are involved.Internal hemorrhaging in tissue is bruising... its only a serious problem in a open cavity or if its outside the body.
Ok, now we're mixing things. Now you're talking not about wounding, but about incapacitation.Its also not a major issue if the damage is to smaller arteries. At least not with the speed needed in a defense situation.
The sad fact is that when we talk about incapacitation we're talking about nothing BUT unreliability. At this time, there is nothing you can carry in a practical fashion that will provide reliable incapacitation. The short story of handgun incapacitation is that it can't be reliably achieved "with the speed needed in a defense situation" unless the central nervous system is significantly damaged. And there is no handgun/bullet combination that can guarantee that since that's primarily dependent on where the bullet goes (is aimed).
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Yes. The only variable would be weight/mass/density of the core material, not other physical properties such as hardness or elasticity. All other properties must be identical if the experiment is going to compare the two projectiles based solely on expansion relative to weight, at a constant velocity.sigcurious said:Does this assume unobtainium has the same physical properties as lead, minus mass?
JohnKSa: said:It is inaccurate to say that temporary stretch cavity does not/can not cause permanent damage in tissue because it can be documented that it actually can and does cause permanent damage under the proper circumstances.
Unfortunately, this subtle distinction is lost upon many. It alll depends upon the elasticity of the tissue (its "stretchiness") that is being struck. Muscle, lungs, most GI tissue is very elastic - brain, liver, kidneys, not so much.
JohnKSa said:The short story of handgun incapacitation is that it can't be reliably achieved "with the speed needed in a defense situation" unless the central nervous system is significantly damaged. And there is no handgun/bullet combination that can guarantee that since that's primarily dependent on where the bullet goes (is aimed).
I'm soundly convinced that the difference between 9mm ball and the 'best' 10mm JHP will not compensate for 2 1/2" of lateral dispersion from the centerline of the body.
Muzzle Energy
If it were only muzzle velocity, all of the atomic bullets (aka atomic & subatomic particles with measurable mass), moving at over 100,000 miles per SECOND would have killed us all eons ago.
Conversely a 20 ton steam roller moving at 5 feet per second has significant kinetic / "muzzle energy" but near 0 muzzle velocity, but has enough energy to inflict significant damage.
If it were only muzzle velocity, all of the atomic bullets (aka atomic & subatomic particles with measurable mass), moving at over 100,000 miles per SECOND would have killed us all eons ago.
Conversely a 20 ton steam roller moving at 5 feet per second has significant kinetic / "muzzle energy" but near 0 muzzle velocity, but has enough energy to inflict significant damage.
Most of these discussions, hinge on single bullets, striking this, or that.
Firing one, or two rounds, then evaluate? If it ever was, to my mind, a factor, is nonsensical.
SHOOT HIM A LOT! Comes to mind. So other factors come in to play, amount of rounds carried in a given pistol, is significant. As is the recoil of a given bullet, moving the muzzle off target, so many imponderables!
After action reports, as to time of day, clothing worn, mind set, you could go on and on.
Only things you, the pistol carrier, can control count. Calibre, bullet type and weight, amount in a given pistol, even sights, and trigger release weight, all need to be taken into consideration. Even such factors as keeping away from certain areas of a City, how you carry your self defense pistol (re rapid deployment) holsters, mode of dress.
Lady Luck is in there somewhere also! Managers, and various, and sundry supervisors like to say things like "The big picture" And it is, a big picture.
Firing one, or two rounds, then evaluate? If it ever was, to my mind, a factor, is nonsensical.
SHOOT HIM A LOT! Comes to mind. So other factors come in to play, amount of rounds carried in a given pistol, is significant. As is the recoil of a given bullet, moving the muzzle off target, so many imponderables!
After action reports, as to time of day, clothing worn, mind set, you could go on and on.
Only things you, the pistol carrier, can control count. Calibre, bullet type and weight, amount in a given pistol, even sights, and trigger release weight, all need to be taken into consideration. Even such factors as keeping away from certain areas of a City, how you carry your self defense pistol (re rapid deployment) holsters, mode of dress.
Lady Luck is in there somewhere also! Managers, and various, and sundry supervisors like to say things like "The big picture" And it is, a big picture.
TEXASFIVEGUN
Inactive
Placement is KING and Penetration is QUEEN everything else is Angles dancing on pin heads!
Aguila Blanca
Staff
And the question that started this discussion did not ask about either placement or penetration.TEXASFIVEGUN said:Placement is KING and Penetration is QUEEN everything else is Angles dancing on pin heads!
Seriously -- I know of forums (and participate in one) where major thread drift is expected and is viewed humourously, but I thought THIS forum was supposed to be about trying to answer questions. When a question specifically cites exactly TWO factors, how is it helpful to bring in "answers" that don't even mention the factors cited in the question?
The golf ball delivers much much greater energy to the guy's head.
Energy delivered to the target matters.
If you don't believe me, you provide the test head and I'll provide the ping pong ball and the golf ball.
"energy transfer" or "energy dump" is BS. Energy is the ability to do work. It does not mean that the work gets done, or that it is the work you intended to do.
Here's another test. Put on a baseball mitt. Catch a baseball. Next, catch a 22 rimfire fired from a handgun. Same amount of energy. The entire energy of the baseball is absorbed. The 22 will likely pass through your hand, and your hand will absorb a small amount of the 22's energy.
Which one did more work? The baseball. It moved your entire hand. Your hand bounced back slowly, absorbing the momentum.
The 22 did less work- it moved a small amount of tissue- very quickly- but only a small amount. But it did more damage.
The amount of energy is only a small factor in the amount of damage done by a bullet. As others have said, there are other factors that are more important. An even bigger part of the picture is whether the damage is effective in stopping a fight and that mostly comes down to placement.
zombietactics
New member
^^^ Stealing this ^^^
Still peddling the same worn-out disinformation, huh?
Wolberg's research paper is valid, here's why-
It is common and accepted practice for researchers to select the parametric and data constraints for their case studies. If this were viewed as reason to discredit his or anyone else's research and findings, then every case study research article that has ever been written and its findings would have to be thrown out. In fact, parametric and constraint selection is a sound practice within scientific research projects and to attempt to portray it as some sort of dishonesty is an act of intellectual dishonesty itself. So long as it is done honestly and openly (as evidenced by Wolberg's explanations of the constraints of his data selection on the first page of the article cited above) and the reasons for such constraint can be shown to be valid, then it is a valid practice.
Ok of 156 or 157 shootings he only used 27 bullets that met his "criteria" but M&S is made up RIGHT........
Nanuk: said:Still peddling the same worn-out disinformation, huh?
Wolberg's research paper is valid, here's why-
It is common and accepted practice for researchers to select the parametric and data constraints for their case studies. If this were viewed as reason to discredit his or anyone else's research and findings, then every case study research article that has ever been written and its findings would have to be thrown out. In fact, parametric and constraint selection is a sound practice within scientific research projects and to attempt to portray it as some sort of dishonesty is an act of intellectual dishonesty itself. So long as it is done honestly and openly (as evidenced by Wolberg's explanations of the constraints of his data selection on the first page of the article cited above) and the reasons for such constraint can be shown to be valid, then it is a valid practice.
Ok of 156 or 157 shootings he only used 27 bullets that met his "criteria" but M&S is made up RIGHT........
There's a fundamental difference between the two acts (the selection of viable data versus the falsification and manipulation of outcomes) that you are either unaware of or have simply chosen to ignore.
Wolberg excluded incomplete/inapplicable data that had no chance of providing the information that he needed by eliminating hits to bony tissues and wound tracks that left the bodies of his subjects.
Marshall and Sanow manipulated their outcomes to arrive at a desired conclusion, hence the highly suspect results and falisfied data uncovered in the statisitcal analysis here-
Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time by M. van Maanan
There's a fundamental difference between the two acts (the selection of viable data versus the falsification and manipulation of outcomes) that you are either unaware of or have simply chosen to ignore.
Wolberg excluded incomplete/inapplicable data that had no chance of providing the information that he needed by eliminating hits to bony tissues and wound tracks that left the bodies of his subjects.
Marshall and Sanow manipulated their outcomes to arrive at a desired conclusion, hence the highly suspect results and falisfied data uncovered in the statisitcal analysis here-
Semantics, manipulation is manipulation. I am not ignoring anything, I know what I have seen and what has worked on the street and what has not worked on the street. I know for a fact that if you take a 38 special +P 125 grain JHP which is a marginal stopper and increase the velocity by 500 FPS and call it a magnum it works very well on people.
Last edited:
Nanuk: said:Semantics, manipulation is manipulation. I am not ignoring anything, I know what I have seen and what has worked on the street and what has not worked on the street.
OK, then hide behind the claim "that it's all semantics". Whether you accept it or not, one (ruling out invalid/unusable data) is a legitimate practice whereas the other (manipulating vaild data through ommission or alteration) is not.
Nanuk: said:I know for a fact that if you take a 38 special +P 125 grain JHP which is a marginal stopper and increase the velocity by 500 FPS and call it a magnum it works very well on people.
Your single point of data (that .38 caliber 125 gr. JHP at 1450 fps) is incomplete in that it fails to consider what anatomical structures/tissues are hit and damaged- a factor that has great significance as to how well a specific bullet will work on people. M&S's concept of "stopping power" treats every unfired bullet as having the same impact velocity, same expansion, same retained weight, same amount and type of tissue damage as another bullet of the same type and loading- reality be damned. This tremendous assumption is the other great failing point of M&S's concept of "stopping power".
Last edited: