Bullet performance...what do you expect?

Absolutely it can play a role but it doesn't always and only on very very rare conditions does it cause death. Energy transfer in the way most people picture it is a total myth. There is no such thing as an energy dump. No question a bullet moving through flesh at high speed causes a temporary wound channel (a wave if you will) which has come to be known by many names although few are accurate in the truest sense. The hole is a much more reliable killer. The temporary wound channel can cause some temporary shock to the CNS and in very very rare cases, permanent damage but energy does not kill......holes do in all but the rarest of cases.

[300-510]

Im lost dont you need energy behind projectile to achieve hole.

Originally Posted by 300-510

Im lost dont you need energy behind projectile to achieve hole.

Absolutely, it's what allows the bullet to do its work.

[sheepguide]

I admit that I know very little on this subject but some are stating that shockwaves and energy transfer doesnt kill, and maybe that is fact. But there have been alot of deaths in people from a blunt force hit causing internal failures, no penetration just from the hit. Now wouldnt that be death caused by energy transfer through a shock wave?
Just trying to see it straight in my head so dont jump all over me for posting.
SG

[300-510]

Go to hornadys website under ballistics and check out terminal ballistics,there you will find good info.

[Traps]

Originally Posted by 209x50

I know you think acting rude is cool, you'll grow out of that one day. Unlike you I wasn't rude in any way in my post. If I was taken that way then Lefty has my unqualified apology.
Once again I'll recommend you check into the required speed of an energy wave in flesh for lethality.

Here you have a guy Lefty generating discussion. Then you come up with the statement below in response to Chucks about “The minds of the uneducated and misinformed”

"Ha ha! You must have had a good weekend Chuck, you are at the top of your game this morning!"

Acting rude is cool.....I'll act rude to those who are rude. If you promote bullying your no better than the person doing it. I'll give you one thing, at least you recognized you went a little overboard and apologized.

[Traps]

Originally Posted by 209x50

I'd also research the speed at which that wave travels in various substances and how fast a projectile has to be going to create it. You'll learn wondrous things.

Originally Posted by 209x50

I'd research the term "hydrostatic" if I was you.

I’d, I’d......I’ll call those weak attempts to discredit something I already know. If you want to play let us take that a step further, do you know why they are different speeds in various substances?

Originally Posted by 209x50

Once again I'll recommend you check into the required speed of an energy wave in flesh for lethality.

Can I ask why? Are you deflecting the argument or trying to painting me into a corner.....I haven’t said anything about how fast an energy wave has to be going to be lethal but you sure are looking for a fight on it. Find someone gullible to take the bait on it and tell me how it works out for you.

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by Traps

209x50 your very confused. Shock waves don’t always travel through a fluid but hydrostatic shock waves do, hence the name hydro. The term shock waves would be a better substitute than hydrostatic shock because the body is only roughly 60% water. Shock waves aren’t particular about what they travel through. It can be earth, (just ask Japan), air (ding, ding, ding.....yes its a fluid) or a liquid. So to answer your question what does the shock wave (correct term here, pay attention) travel through? It travels through everything the lungs are made of. Shock waves are the sonic boom that you hear when a jet fighter breaks the sound barrier, seismic waves that follow the earth’s plates shifting and the gas and bullet breaking the sound barrier when it leaves the muzzle of your gun.

Have you ever watched a high speed bullet on film impact the side of an animal? There is a ripple at the point of impact. What transmits the shock wave......the body and everything it is made of surrounding the point of impact.

I 100% agree with you,as do alot of guys on here.

The example I used over a year ago when this topic came up is :if you shoot a Bull Caribou in the side of the antler with a bullet going 3000' per second it will drop the animal and alot of times stun it or even knock it out for that matter,yet if you shoot that same caribou in the side of the antler with an arrow going only 300' per second nothing happens,the caribou just keeps on running with the arrow stuck in the antler!!!

What is it that causes the caribou to get knocked out when its shot in the antler with the bullet???but not knocked out when its shot in the antler with the arrow???

[super7mag]

I chimed in last year on this same topic, I think I understand somewhat both philosphsy's, yet time and time again people that support the holes kill theory will be the first ones to jump on a guy going elk hunting with a 6mm. If holes are what kills and nothing more then lets get out the caliper, a .308 bullet is .065" bigger diameter then the .243 win, so .030" on each side of that piece of copper or copper and lead is what does the killing, the depth of a spark plug gap difference. Well this gets less and less as we go up a 280 rem with a .284 dia. has a whopping .024 Dia advantage or .012" per side. But bullets expand, does a .308 bullet expand better then the smaller counter parts, is expansion linear as a percentage? If the theory that holes kill and energy does not play apart then a shot with a .308 win would be a % better then a 7mm-08 that would be a % better then the .243 win. This does not happen and it is not the case, bang flops happen , and dashers happen. Different deer, different shot, different day, bullets play apart ,the shooter is the biggest varible, and a nice audible WHAP! means tenderloins for supper.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by super7mag

I chimed in last year on this same topic, I think I understand somewhat both philosphsy's, yet time and time again people that support the holes kill theory will be the first ones to jump on a guy going elk hunting with a 6mm. If holes are what kills and nothing more then lets get out the caliper, a .308 bullet is .065" bigger diameter then the .243 win, so .030" on each side of that piece of copper or copper and lead is what does the killing, the depth of a spark plug gap difference. Well this gets less and less as we go up a 280 rem with a .284 dia. has a whopping .024 Dia advantage or .012" per side. But bullets expand, does a .308 bullet expand better then the smaller counter parts, is expansion linear as a percentage? If the theory that holes kill and energy does not play apart then a shot with a .308 win would be a % better then a 7mm-08 that would be a % better then the .243 win. This does not happen and it is not the case, bang flops happen , and dashers happen. Different deer, different shot, different day, bullets play apart ,the shooter is the biggest varible, and a nice audible WHAP! means tenderloins for supper.

This is related to what I had stated in an earlier post :

"Hence why some guys like a heavier bullet over a lighter one due to kinetic energy. I don't think many guys shoot a heavier bullet to increase the wound channel."

So take a same diameter bullet even, a 150gr .30 cal vs a 200gr .30 cal. bullet. I don't know the way to calculate the energy but most guys would likely use a 200gr bullet for heavier game vs a 150gr bullet if given the choice would they not? Not only for the additional weight but also sec. density etc....If all else is considered equal (ie velocity) a 200gr. bullet "hits harder" than a 150gr bullet.....the "hits harder" part is the energy it transfers through impact.

Lefty

[snapshot300]

Quite some time ago I recall reading an article (forgive me because I do not recall all of the details) but it was written by one of the hunting magazine writers. Anyhow this person knew someone that had to put a herd of buffalo down for some reason, so he arranged for himself and some of his friends to come out and shoot these buffalo. They did this because he had arranged for some Veterinarians to carry out autopsies to derermine why some would drop dead on impact and others would not.

All of the buffalo were shot through the heart lung area, anything that dropped dead on the spot were tagged while the ones that did not expire instantly were not tagged. When the autopsies were performe the Vets. discovered that all of the animals that died by a flop bang had suffered a brain hemorrhage.

To make a long story short the conclusion of the Vets. findings was that when the bullet struck the animal thier heart was in the proper stage of heart beat that allowed a hydraulic force from the bullet to cause a brain hemorrhage that was severe enough to cause an instant death.

[CaberTosser]

Nothing less than this is accepable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_P_A...layer_embedded

[leo]

I don't propose to an expert on terminal ballistics, but I do believe that there is too broad of a difference shot to shot under near exacting circumstances to predict the destructive mechanics of a bullet. Holes definitely are the largest part of the equation from my perspective, but I do believe that there is residual energy transfer through surrounding tissue, be it flesh, air, or water base. I could care less if my slug has passed completely through an animal , or is on the off side hide . Confidence in the bullet and your placement of it or far more important IMO.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Traps

Here you have a guy Lefty generating discussion. Then you come up with the statement below in response to Chucks about “The minds of the uneducated and misinformed”

"Ha ha! You must have had a good weekend Chuck, you are at the top of your game this morning!"

Acting rude is cool.....I'll act rude to those who are rude. If you promote bullying your no better than the person doing it. I'll give you one thing, at least you recognized you went a little overboard and apologized.

You assuime that I was encouraging chuck...

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Traps

I’d, I’d......I’ll call those weak attempts to discredit something I already know. If you want to play let us take that a step further, do you know why they are different speeds in various substances?



Can I ask why? Are you deflecting the argument or trying to painting me into a corner.....I haven’t said anything about how fast an energy wave has to be going to be lethal but you sure are looking for a fight on it. Find someone gullible to take the bait on it and tell me how it works out for you.

I'll wait for you to explain what exactly you were talking about.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Duramaximos

I'll play devils advocate on myself. By this logic I'd also expect to see a heart completly obliterated with a direct hit, however I've been fortunate to see a few heart shots, and apart from the direct wound the rest of the heart appears undamaged.

I think the shock wave does play a role, but the more I think about it, it should be a secondary consideration/benefit.

this is a very sound observation.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duramaximos
I'll play devils advocate on myself. By this logic I'd also expect to see a heart completly obliterated with a direct hit, however I've been fortunate to see a few heart shots, and apart from the direct wound the rest of the heart appears undamaged.

I think the shock wave does play a role, but the more I think about it, it should be a secondary consideration/benefit.

Originally Posted by 209x50

this is a very sound observation.

Well I guess we have come full circle and agree on the issue 209X50...

From my OP:

"Personally from my experience and what I expect from a bullet I look for good expansion, good wound channel, with no exit. I want what I shoot to eat up every bit of energy my bullet has to deliver. If I find the bullet on the off side hide while skinning I would consider this the ideal scenario."

Only difference is I assume you would like to have the bullet exit, whereas I like to find them and keep them as a momento

Lefty

[209x50]

Originally Posted by whitetail Junkie

I 100% agree with you,as do alot of guys on here.

The example I used over a year ago when this topic came up is :if you shoot a Bull Caribou in the side of the antler with a bullet going 3000' per second it will drop the animal and alot of times stun it or even knock it out for that matter,yet if you shoot that same caribou in the side of the antler with an arrow going only 300' per second nothing happens,the caribou just keeps on running with the arrow stuck in the antler!!!

What is it that causes the caribou to get knocked out when its shot in the antler with the bullet???but not knocked out when its shot in the antler with the arrow???

You don't think that it is a huge leap comparing a strike to a bone connected to the skull that encases the brain to a bullet through the lungs? Animals and people get knocked out from bumps to the head all the time yet recover from it. Many animals fall on the spot when a bullet goes through one of the fins on the neck or spine vertebrae. The movement of the vertebrae in reaction to being hit causes loss of control in the central nervous system. The animal falls down but unless the shot put a hole through a major blood vessel, it recovers and gets up to run off. Like the caribou with a hole in its antler.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duramaximos
I'll play devils advocate on myself. By this logic I'd also expect to see a heart completly obliterated with a direct hit, however I've been fortunate to see a few heart shots, and apart from the direct wound the rest of the heart appears undamaged.

I think the shock wave does play a role, but the more I think about it, it should be a secondary consideration/benefit.




Well I guess we have come full circle and agree on the issue 209X50...

From my OP:

"Personally from my experience and what I expect from a bullet I look for good expansion, good wound channel, with no exit. I want what I shoot to eat up every bit of energy my bullet has to deliver. If I find the bullet on the off side hide while skinning I would consider this the ideal scenario."

Only difference is I assume you would like to have the bullet exit, whereas I like to find them and keep them as a momento

Lefty

It was your second post that brought up "hydrostatic shock" not me.

To paraphrase DM was making the argument that "energy" was lethal and then disproved his own argument with a very valid observation that in the end the heart only had a hole through it - causing death. Practically all damage in a shot animal can be attributed to the shrapnel field of the bullet and its impacts.
Just a general observation, people are so confused by statements about bullet energy and this leads to sometimes confusing conclusions. It is easy to understand what bullet enery really is and how it works when you realize a motionless bullet has no energy.

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

This is related to what I had stated in an earlier post :

"Hence why some guys like a heavier bullet over a lighter one due to kinetic energy. I don't think many guys shoot a heavier bullet to increase the wound channel."

So take a same diameter bullet even, a 150gr .30 cal vs a 200gr .30 cal. bullet. I don't know the way to calculate the energy but most guys would likely use a 200gr bullet for heavier game vs a 150gr bullet if given the choice would they not? Not only for the additional weight but also sec. density etc....If all else is considered equal (ie velocity) a 200gr. bullet "hits harder" than a 150gr bullet.....the "hits harder" part is the energy it transfers through impact.

Lefty

That whole arguement falls apart when you compare a cartridge like the 45/70 to a 25-06. Energy is a calculation of both speed and weight, not weight alone so a 25-06 shooting a measly 100 grain bullet has virtually the same energy at the muzzle as a 45/70 shooting a 300 grain bullet. At 100 yards the 25-06 has over 200 pounds more energy. Now tell me which one hits harder.

Before the advent of jacketed bullets, heavier bullets were really the only means of acheiving additional penetration. More energy was required to acheive more penetration.....basically to let the bullet do its work. Energy was far less of a mystery back then. Energy acheived penetration. But now that we jhave controlled expansion bullets, the true meaning of energy has been lost and it's come to respresent some individual force that's capable of killing. It's not.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

This is related to what I had stated in an earlier post :

"Hence why some guys like a heavier bullet over a lighter one due to kinetic energy. I don't think many guys shoot a heavier bullet to increase the wound channel."

So take a same diameter bullet even, a 150gr .30 cal vs a 200gr .30 cal. bullet. I don't know the way to calculate the energy but most guys would likely use a 200gr bullet for heavier game vs a 150gr bullet if given the choice would they not? Not only for the additional weight but also sec. density etc....If all else is considered equal (ie velocity) a 200gr. bullet "hits harder" than a 150gr bullet.....the "hits harder" part is the energy it transfers through impact.

Lefty

You missed the point I was trying to make.......

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Just a general observation, people are so confused by statements about bullet energy and this leads to sometimes confusing conclusions. It is easy to understand what bullet enery really is and how it works when you realize a motionless bullet has no energy.

The kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.

Lefty

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

The kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.

Lefty

I'm sorry but you lost me on that one Lefty. Are you saying a motionless bullet has kinetic energy?

Newtons Law states that for every action there is an equal reaction. Your shoulder accepted an equal amount of "energy" from accelerating that bullet. Why didn't you fall to the ground from that "energy dump" into your body?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by 209x50

I'm sorry but you lost me on that one Lefty. Are you saying a motionless bullet has kinetic energy?

Newtons Law states that for every action there is an equal reaction. Your shoulder accepted an equal amount of "energy" from accelerating that bullet. Why didn't you fall to the ground from that "energy dump" into your body?

HA! Wow.....now it makes sense....

No I am not, I am saying a bullet in motion has energy...The kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion...I sure hope I don't have to explain to you how a gun goes boom? If I was at the receiving end of the bullet I would take up the energy but not at the end delivering it.

You stated,
"It is easy to understand what bullet enery really is and how it works when you realize a motionless bullet has no energy"...please expand on your meaning here?

If you were making the point that a mtionless bullet contains no energy then I agree with you.

This whole conversation is not about a bullet that is sitting still....its about one fired from a gun (ie. when its fired it moves...therefore it is wait for it...IN MOTION). I am surprised you missed this point?

For your information the snippet I posted is directly from a dictionary, unadulterated....so its not my made up "concept" it is concrete information. Perhaps you just mis-read or misunderstood it which is cool.

I think you have to do a bit more reading and then I think you can figure this one out.

Lefty

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by 209x50

You don't think that it is a huge leap comparing a strike to a bone connected to the skull that encases the brain to a bullet through the lungs? Animals and people get knocked out from bumps to the head all the time yet recover from it. Many animals fall on the spot when a bullet goes through one of the fins on the neck or spine vertebrae. The movement of the vertebrae in reaction to being hit causes loss of control in the central nervous system. The animal falls down but unless the shot put a hole through a major blood vessel, it recovers and gets up to run off. Like the caribou with a hole in its antler.

Why wont the arrow hitting the animals antler knock it out yet a bullet will?

How about when cops have shot people in the chest with Rubber Bullets and it has killed them!!!

Do you think that it was the "HOLE" from the Rubber bullet which caused the individual to expire???

[elkhunter11]

How about when cops have shot people in the chest with Rubber Bullets and it has killed them!!!

Do you think that it was the "HOLE" from the Rubber bullet which caused the individual to expire???

In some cases, it could be from the hole in a lung caused by the rib that was broken when it was struck by that rubber bullet.

Or they could die as a result of a ruptured liver or spleen caused by the impact of the bullet.

.

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

In some cases, it could be from the hole in a lung caused by the rib that was broken when it was struck by that rubber bullet.

.

What caused the rib to break?

Originally Posted by whitetail Junkie

What caused the rib to break?

An object striking the elastic tissue covering it.

[elkhunter11]

What caused the rib to break?

The impact of the bullet striking the rib or the tissue covering it, would be a direct impact , not hydrostatic shock.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

HA! Wow.....now it makes sense....

No I am not, I am saying a bullet in motion has energy...The kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion...Goodness, I've said that from start, you don't really read other peoples posts do you? I sure hope I don't have to explain to you how a gun goes boom?If I was at the receiving end of the bullet I would take up the energy but not at the end delivering it. Ah but you are, Newton's Law of action and reaction. Are you getting a measure of how small amount of energy that is?

You stated,
"It is easy to understand what bullet enery really is and how it works when you realize a motionless bullet has no energy"...please expand on your meaning here?
Once again if the bullet isn't moving it has no energy, it really is that simple.

If you were making the point that a mtionless bullet contains no energy then I agree with you. Really? Took you long enough to come to the realization. Now if you could only understand how you absorbed just as much energy launching the bullet as the bullet has in flight we would be getting some where.

For your information the snippet I posted is directly from a dictionary, unadulterated....so its not my made up "concept" it is concrete information. Perhaps you just mis-read or misunderstood it which is cool.
Please! not many people consider Wikipedia much of a reference source! LOL!!

I think you have to do a bit more reading and then I think you can figure this one out.

Lefty