2200 fps?

[Techy]

I found this interesting. Being a science guy I always get into this type of stuff and enjoy ballistics gel tests for the reasons that are explained in this video.

The thing I found interesting was the 2200 fps threshold they spoke of. I can't remember if I have read about this before or not, but their explanation was good. I would say this is worth the watch. Yes it is mostly about handgun performance, but there are tidbits that relate to us long range guys like perhaps this 2200 fps bit. Obviously velocity really comes into play when talking hydrostatic shock. And there is a point where that velocity is insufficient. I am sure sure shape and surface area play a role as well, but like I said, interesting and imo worth a watch.

I'll leave it here and you guys can discuss, add, or detract.

 

[memtb]

We've all through the years established a lot theories pertain* to bullet performance, ft/lbs. energy, lbs./ft. energy, Taylor KO values, and the list goes on. Here's a very informative site that may reinforce your beliefs, or really hurt your feelings! Lots of information, some of It mathematically above my "pay grade"! memtb

http://rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

 

[Techy]

We've all through the years established a lot theories pertain* to bullet performance, ft/lbs. energy, lbs./ft. energy, Taylor KO values, and the list goes on. Here's a very informative site that may reinforce your beliefs, or really hurt your feelings! Lots of information, some of It mathematically above my "pay grade"! memtb

http://rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

There's a lot on there! I'll check it out. There are just so many variables on this topic, but I am always interested in ideas and theories.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

We've all through the years established a lot theories pertain* to bullet performance, ft/lbs. energy, lbs./ft. energy, Taylor KO values, and the list goes on. Here's a very informative site that may reinforce your beliefs, or really hurt your feelings! Lots of information, some of It mathematically above my "pay grade"! memtb

http://rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

Worth the read!

 

[Techy]

We've all through the years established a lot theories pertain* to bullet performance, ft/lbs. energy, lbs./ft. energy, Taylor KO values, and the list goes on. Here's a very informative site that may reinforce your beliefs, or really hurt your feelings! Lots of information, some of It mathematically above my "pay grade"! memtb

http://rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

Read some of it. I plan on reading the rest. Good stuff so far. I gravitated to the part on hydrostatic shock first since it related to the video I posted. All good info imo. I wish he talked more about the cavitation bit, perhaps this is more in a different area and I'll get to it.

I so far agree with everything I have seen. The author has put a lot of time and thought into it with some good examples to illustrate the points.

Just to be clear I was in no way meaning to convey in the original post that hydrostatic shock was the principle cause of lethality. Just that the effect possibly had a quantifiable minimum velocity. I continue to use hydrostatic shock vs hydrodynamic impulse, just due to common place of the terminology. Forgive me

 

[Rich Coyle]

Kind of fun. I abitrarily chose 2200 for the minimum impact velocity for hunting.

 

[Huggy]

Excellent video and subject matter and one that we should all consider when choosing a caliber and projectile for any given task.
One item I noticed that was absent from the discussion, particularly germane when discussing the type of ballistic gel used to test, is the end target differences.
NOTE: We are all adults here and this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone but when we are talking about "performance" it translates to end result on a LIVING target, i.e., human or a animal, so don't be squeamish.
Continuing.....
Each "target" (using humans in this discussion) will play a part in bullet performance that cannot be discounted.
Bad Guy #1, 150 lbs of wiry, sinewy composition, won't necessarily react the same as Bad Guy #2 who might be 6'6" tall, 300 lbs of weightlifter physique and just mean as H**L in nature. And this is leaving out the variable that either one is under the influence of anything other than just life in general.
My point is, scrawny Boy, with little to no body mass to hamper a bullet penetration, would seem to be a perfect candidate for a DRT WRT bullet performance and his cessation of criminal activity.
Now our second example of Mr. Ginormous Bruiser who has muscle density similar to that of a house built from concrete slump blocks might find the exact same bullet, fired from the exact same launcher and all other variables as consistent as time, location and weather variables permit, being stopped just under, say, a pectoral muscle and showing little to no indication of stopping such a bruiser, even though the bullet performed as advertised.
Then take a third adversary who weighs 400 lbs but it is all that remains of excessive beer, tacos, baked potatoes and other foods which translates into flab.
Here this person presents a LOT of "liquid" so to speak, for the bullet to penetrate before getting to anything vital beneath that will turn off his lights and motor.
And these individuals are (usually) only (?) facing the effects of a handgun projectile at commensurate speed and not rifle rounds for this discussion.
The whole point of my comments are (sorta) about the last parts of the videos where the speakers discuss caliber vs caliber and what the shooter can BEST employ for the task THEY are involved with.
If you can RELIABLY place your shots where they are "most" effective (according to published reliable data) then you can "reasonably" expect them to do what they were designed to do, all other factors being equal. (Which they usually are NOT.) But that is a topic for another story.
Think about it in a hunting scenario as well. Your favorite Coues deer round in .243 caliber works well at all reasonable distances but is it the best choice when hunting moose, for example? Again, all things being equal.
So choosing a delivery platform in a caliber YOU can shoot ACCURATELY and then feeding it with ammo that has a PROVEN track record is all important IMHO. And, again, that is assuming YOU can do YOUR part in the delivery process.
But it all boils down to the fates, really, as to whether or not you are the victor in a SD situation.
You's pays you's money and you's takes you's chances after all.
Just hope and PRAY that you are NEVER put in that situation where YOUR overall performance is included in the history books for dissection by the Monday morning quarterbacks.
Good Luck, God Bless and Be Safe.
Overnout

 

[memtb]

Huggy, You gave some pretty good possible scenarios, then add to that potentially several layers of clothing, jean material, a leather "bikers jacket, ect.,ect., ect. A lot of variables that may adversely affect the handgun bullet performance. These are some reasons that I am very seriously considering going to a wide metplat cast bullet in my defense handguns. These bullets work well in game, should be adequate for a human. At least, I know that the bullet will arrive as directed! memtb

 

[Huggy]

Huggy, You gave some pretty good possible scenarios, then add to that potentially several layers of clothing, jean material, a leather "bikers jacket, ect.,ect., ect. A lot of variables that may adversely affect the handgun bullet performance. These are some reasons that I am very seriously considering going to a wide metplat cast bullet in my defense handguns. These bullets work well in game, should be adequate for a human. At least, I know that the bullet will arrive as directed! memtb

Sir, I cannot fault your logic and others do the same already.
For my money, though, I prefer to use a tried and true factory round since the manufacturers have done far more imperical testing than I could ever hope to on a limited budget. Plus, when looking at some of the better track records of said rounds when used as directed, I'd prefer to play the odds.
Not saying that your idea doesn't have merit by a long shot and if I lived and hunted in areas that had large and potentially dangerous critters, as well as some two-legged versions, I think I would opt for a similar round myself.

 

[257Tony]

Kind of fun. I abitrarily chose 2200 for the minimum impact velocity for hunting.

Funny you mention that, I did the same a few years back after seeing many animals harvested every year while guiding. In my mind it was to better facilitate expansion, but the shock factor makes sense.

 

[mnoland30]

I read the link that Techy sent. It reminds me of my college professor deriving Schrodinger's equation on the blackboard. As an engineer, I found it a waste of time. For more useable information, try this empirical discussion of terminal ballistics, :Terminal Ballistics Researchhttps://www.ballisticstudies.com/ His articles are based on autopsies of many animals after being shot with different calibers and velocities, and discusses different bullet contruction. I find it very useful. My personal experience with muzzleloaders is that high sectional density (.280 or higher) with a bullet that expands at the velocity your bullet hits with will always do the job humanely.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

We used the Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories as the model for our desired terminal terminal form. As we have worked on design and copper alloy to achieve more consistently rapid bullet deformation (as shown in SHWT), the more consistently dramatic results on game have become. There is without a doubt legitimacy behind the science.