Energy or bullet diameter most important?

[RockyMtnMT]

So if we had two equal shaped fragments of a bullet. One made from plastic and one from lead, moving at the same speed, they will do equal damage?




I agree
But at the same speed is where the comparison becomes fuzzy.



Luckily for us, this scenario is extremely unlikely.




What about bullets that rapidly expand or fragment? Dont they create a good size wound channel? What would be a good way to describe the possible distinction between the explosive potential of two different sized bullets leaving at similar speeds at a variety or ranges and conditions?

There is no need to get chippy.

As the frangible bullet comes undone the wound channel it large in dia and it slows down rapidly. The slower it goes the smaller the wound channel becomes. It leaves potential for the wound not to reach both lungs or the far side with a good wound all the way.

If you really want to know the answers based in actual science then you will read the link that I provided. It takes every scenario and tests it scientifically to see if it has merit or not. The goal for all of us is to stack the odds in our favor in order to lessen the potential for a failure or a poor outcome.

I gave the link to the scientific data that backs up my position. It is quite long and thorough, and I can not recite it in it's entirety. If you really have a passion to know you will not be disappointed in reading it.

Steve

 

[fmajor]

There is no need to get chippy.

Steve

This is an intriguing discussion. I hope it remains productive.

Unfortunately, this, like so many other discussions (favorite elk chambering/round, Dodge vs Ford vs Chevy, etc) brings participants emotions into the matter.

In fact, for this very reason many great contributors have distanced themselves from more frequently participating in discussions (or participating at all). Very unfortunate and highly irritating.

People (often times those not used to actual discussions) too often connect their opinions with their emotions. This utterly derails any useful discussion. Every time.

Many people simply do not have the capacity to consider the notion that other peoples ideas could be correct and that they potentially may be wrong. It is academic immaturity and illustrates a stunted intellect.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

This is an intriguing discussion. I hope it remains productive.

Unfortunately, this, like so many other discussions (favorite elk chambering/round, Dodge vs Ford vs Chevy, etc) brings participants emotions into the matter.

In fact, for this very reason many great contributors have distanced themselves from more frequently participating in discussions (or participating at all). Very unfortunate and highly irritating.

People (often times those not used to actual discussions) too often connect their opinions with their emotions. This utterly derails any useful discussion. Every time.

Many people simply do not have the capacity to consider the notion that other peoples ideas could be correct and that they potentially may be wrong. It is academic immaturity and illustrates a stunted intellect.

Agreed. If someone can bring scientific proof that high fragmenting bullets work better I would certainly read the information. I can make my bullets come completely undone and would certainly be willing to market them that way if someone can prove to me that it is better... using physics. I need science to prove it, not sales pitches or stories of success or I know a guy that is an expert.

Steve

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I'll add one other thing. If someone can prove that high fragmenting bullets have better performance killing big game, I will not get one bit upset. In fact I will be happy because I will then have another proven product to market. I will not market a product that has a higher chance to fail.

Steve

 

[J E Custom]

Nothing personal or derogatory just my opinion.
We can quote all the theories and try to compare bullet performance on paper, but the real proof of the matter is in the field.

It has been proven time and time again the transfer of the projectiles energy is the reason bullets are designed to expand but at the same time they need to retain most of there weight to be able to transfer there energy to the game. A typical example would be a 30/06 with two different rounds
with the same weight bullets at the same velocity, one being a armor piercing bullet and the other a
typical hunting bullet with controlled expansion. one will completely pass through the animal with little or no effect on the animal. the other bullet that expands and transfers most if not all its energy will normally take the animal down right there, why would anyone use a frangible bullet on game ior even compare it to other types of bullets is a mysteries to me.

Another example (There are many) a 7mmRem Mag produces close to 3300 ft/lbs of energy at 3150 ft/sec. the 444 marlin is much slower at 2350 and it delivers 2950 ft/lbs of energy.
most of the time a deer hit with the 7 mm RM runs for a very short distance (10 to 80 yards) before falling. the 444 or like cartridges will knock a deer on his ***** and most of the time he will be facing the other way and with the exit hole up. it is just a pure case of energy transfer. with 300ft/lbs less energy the different in the results are dramatic.

I would rather be hit buy a feather going 100 miles per hour than a bowling ball going 10. the feather will shed its energy fast but the bowling ball will transfer all of its energy and do lots of damage. (probably not a good example)

To me one of the worst things a person that hunts can do is go to the field with the wrong bullet for the game.

I prefer a wound channel to pass through leaving a good exit hole, but I want the bullet to expend most if not all of its energy on the game for maximum effectiveness.

This has been my experiences over 55 years of hunting not reading articles on the internet.

J E CUSTOM

 

[Canadian Bushman]

There is no need to get chippy.

As the frangible bullet comes undone the wound channel it large in dia and it slows down rapidly. The slower it goes the smaller the wound channel becomes. It leaves potential for the wound not to reach both lungs or the far side with a good wound all the way.

If you really want to know the answers based in actual science then you will read the link that I provided. It takes every scenario and tests it scientifically to see if it has merit or not. The goal for all of us is to stack the odds in our favor in order to lessen the potential for a failure or a poor outcome.

I gave the link to the scientific data that backs up my position. It is quite long and thorough, and I can not recite it in it's entirety. If you really have a passion to know you will not be disappointed in reading it.

Steve

Im not chippy, im simply gonna find other avenues of interest to spend my time if you refuse to address my questions concerning the statements you made. Im reading the article, it is massive, and it will take some time. It seems to haves the same baseline ideas as yourself, except it defends them with an enormous amount of caveats. Debating these topics with the premise of that material being understood, makes this debate irrelevant for all who have not read it, which im guessing is everyone except you.

How can a bullet Dumping energy into an animal be an old wives tale? What happens to the energy a bullet has, when it hits an animal and does not exit?

How could you possibly imagine 2000ft/lbs of force hitting an animal in a 1/4" size area and neither penetrating or hurting the animal? How is this even a possible scenario?

What happens to the bullet when it hits the steel plate and barely causes it to swing? Where has the energy gone? What happens to the ground in front of a target? What determines whether the bullet deflects or penetrates the steel?

Comparing a bullet hitting steel and pushing it with your finger is not a fair comparison of a bullet striking an animal. For one, the properties of the targets are vastly different. Secondly the amount of force and rate of application are vastly different. Surely your deer dont go rolling across the ground when they are shot?

I do agree with you that damage to the animals internal organs is what kills them. I also agree that its usually the bullet or bullet fragments that cause this damage. I agree this usually happens when there is a large displacement ( of what you didnt say ) of the bullets velocity, energy, and even materials. How is this not considered and energy dump?

What about bullets that rapidly expand or fragment? Dont they create a good size wound channel? What would be a good way to describe the possible distinction between the explosive potential of two different sized bullets leaving at similar speeds at a variety or ranges and conditions?

So if we had two equal shaped fragments of a bullet. One made from plastic and one from lead, moving at the same speed, they will do equal damage?

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I am not doing a good jog of explaining the energy. It is not the energy that does the damage. The energy is an arbitrary number. It is the form of the bullet that causes the terminal performance. Having a bullet remain in an animal and leave all of it's energy in the animal is not some sort of a bonus or ideal outcome. In the case of pointed bullets we need the force of the impact to cause the deformation of the bullet necessary to cause permanent displacement of the soft tissue. So as JE said, a pointed bullet that stays pointed will not do enough damage to efficiently/quickly kill. As well as a bullet that comes apart and can not penetrate deeply enough. With bullets we need them to tear the soft tissue to cause traumatic bleeding for quick kills. So on impact we rely on the force to change the shape of the projectile into a shape that causes the permanent wound needed to bleed the animal out quickly. A bullet that comes apart on impact has the potential to do great damage laterally as well as the potential to not travel very far into the animal. Leaving the possibility for a poor result. A bullet that deforms into the classic mushroom shape and retains enough weight to keep momentum and penetrate deeply will have more consistent results. The rounded shape of the mushroom allows for some flow of the soft tissue around the bullet and back into place as the bullet passes through the soft tissue. Compare this with a projectile that becomes flat on the frontal area, retains enough mass to keep momentum and penetrate as far as possible through the soft tissue of the vital organs. The flat frontal area will displace the soft tissue in a perpendicular direction to the direction of travel. This perpendicular displacement is more permanent than the rounded mushroom shape leaving a larger dia permanent wound to bleed. As a projectile slows down inside of an animal the displacement of soft tissue becomes less narrowing the size of the permanent wound channel and lessening the amount of bleeding caused. So having a bullet remain inside of an animal does not help in causing the trauma needed for quick killing.

Bullets do not have the ability to know how far they have penetrated and then magically open up like a time bomb. Leaving the "energy" of a bullet inside the animal has no merit based in physics. These are the campfire stories that have been passed for generations and some how become known as fact. Just because it has been repeated many times does not make it true.

I am glad you are reading Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories. I hope more people do. It validates and puts to bed the things we have all been told about how bullets perform terminally. The study is quite long so it is difficult for me to nut shell it into the few lines you would like to answer your questions. Just because I can not answer your questions in a couple of lines, when it takes a very in depth article to cover them, does not make my point false. I think when you get through the study we will probably agree on more that we disagree. The fact that you are willing to read it says that you care about how it works and open to learning as much as you can. That is a good thing.

To the OP. Bigger dia projectiles generally do a better job than smaller dia ones. There is more to it than that, but that is a simple rule that is hard to go wrong with.

Steve

 

[FEENIX]

With all due respect to everybody, IMHO, Hornady did an excellent job addressing this issue >>> HITS calculator - Hornady Manufacturing, Inc (also posted in #27)

 

[Canadian Bushman]

Let just agree to give up on you answering any of my questions. Ill try to use more periods in my replies.

I am not doing a good jog of explaining the energy. It is not the energy that does the damage. The energy is an arbitrary number. It is the form of the bullet that causes the terminal performance. Having a bullet remain in an animal and leave all of it's energy in the animal is not some sort of a bonus or ideal outcome.

No you're not.
The sum of velocity and mass, two critical components, can not be arbitrary.
The form/construction dictates the transfer of energy.
Expending all of a bullets energy is absolutely a bonus and an ideal outcome. Having the bullet exit and waste 100ft/lbs of energy on a rock behind the animal is a waste.

It could potentially cause slightly more blood loss, but im not willing to aim for bleeding out an animal. I want them to die much faster than that.

In the case of pointed bullets we need the force of the impact to cause the deformation of the bullet necessary to cause permanent displacement of the soft tissue. So as JE said, a pointed bullet that stays pointed will not do enough damage to efficiently/quickly kill.

This force you speak of is energy.
The deformation of the tip is a transfer of energy.
The faster and more violently this happens, the larger the wound cavity.

Yes JE used a very common example of a very small transfer of energy.

As well as a bullet that comes apart and can not penetrate deeply enough.

A premature transfer of energy

With bullets we need them to tear the soft tissue to cause traumatic bleeding for quick kills. So on impact we rely on the force to change the shape of the projectile into a shape that causes the permanent wound needed to bleed the animal out quickly.

I agree. Different bullets accomplish this in different ways.

A bullet that comes apart on impact has the potential to do great damage laterally as well as the potential to not travel very far into the animal. Leaving the possibility for a poor result.

If it travels far enough before it comes apart, it does great damage inside the animal and has now become extremely effective.

A bullet that deforms into the classic mushroom shape and retains enough weight to keep momentum and penetrate deeply will have more consistent results. The rounded shape of the mushroom allows for some flow of the soft tissue around the bullet and back into place as the bullet passes through the soft tissue.

Smaller wound cavity, maybe more, but maybe less, consistency. In the less consistent scenario you chase the animal for a veey long way.

Compare this with a projectile that becomes flat on the frontal area, retains enough mass to keep momentum and penetrate as far as possible through the soft tissue of the vital organs. The flat frontal area will displace the soft tissue in a perpendicular direction to the direction of travel. This perpendicular displacement is more permanent than the rounded mushroom shape leaving a larger dia permanent wound to bleed.

I agree.

As a projectile slows down inside of an animal the displacement of soft tissue becomes less narrowing the size of the permanent wound channel and lessening the amount of bleeding caused. So having a bullet remain inside of an animal does not help in causing the trauma needed for quick killing.

Lets not discuss how much energy was displaced, and the size of the wound cavity responsible for slowing this bullet down. It doesnt help your case.

Bullets do not have the ability to know how far they have penetrated and then magically open up like a time bomb.

No, this is the shooters job.

Leaving the "energy" of a bullet inside the animal has no merit based in physics.

Absolutely false!

These are the campfire stories that have been passed for generations and some how become known as fact.

See below.

Just because it has been repeated many times does not make it true.

It makes it experience. The same thing used by hunters to pick bullets, calibers, cartridges, and determine how to use them to their advantage.

 

[yobuck]

Interesting discussion. Ive lost count of how many whitetail deer ive watched as they
were hit in a variety of places with a variety of different bullets, fired from a variety
of different guns. In PA where ive done most of that, virtually all long range hunters
use a stationary setup, with the spotter system. We must count points before shooting,
and we can even at extreme ranges due to the type of large optics used by the spotters.
If you want to see an instant kill on a 150# whitetail, then hit it in the head because
otherwise it might just walk off as though not even hit and showing zero signs when it
happened. That includes 300 gr bullets fired from 3000 plus ft per second guns.
Mind you, I didn't say they don't die. They just don't always die when you might think
they should, even after a solid hit with the best of cartridges having lots of energy.
So the ton of bricks or a ton of feathers argument still involves an initial hit of a ton.
One might think that alone would be noticeable, but don't count or bet on it.
Ive also watched as they dropped like a sack of rocks and appear dead. Then get back up and walk away a 100 ft or so before dropping again after being hit at 900 yds with
a 300 gr bullet. So much for the energy factor.

 

[fiftybmg]

It could potentially cause slightly more blood loss, but im not willing to aim for bleeding out an animal. I want them to die much faster than that.

The only way for instant incapacitation is nervous system interruption, which calls for a brain or spine shot.

No amount of energy is going to achieve what shot placement fails to do.

The exception is high velocity small caliber bullets on very small bodied animals.

The deformation of the tip is a transfer of energy. The faster and more violently this happens, the larger the wound cavity.

Theoretical, but does not always occur.

To better understand what works in the field without actually being in the field, read what others have written of their experiences under those conditions. There are many books on the subject, for example "Use Enough Gun" by Ruark.

 

[Canadian Bushman]

The only way for instant incapacitation is nervous system interruption, which calls for a brain or spine shot.

No true in my experience. Ive shot animals in the heart and they died as they were falling. Its possible a fragment damaged the CNS, but thats not where i shot them.

Ive also shot pigs in the head, and found the middle of the neck to be broken. Which injury killed him? I dont much care, but the bullet didnt exit.

No amount of energy is going to achieve what shot placement fails to do.

The exception is high velocity small caliber bullets on very small bodied animals.

Not accurate. A big berger has saved my poor shots on a multitude of occasions.
I still value shot placement very highly on my list of priorities, but high energy fragmenting bullets have saved my tail way more than once.

And just about every type of exploding armament.

Theoretical, but does not always occur.

More often than not.
If the tip deforms, more energy is expelled than if it did not, ask newton.
How why, and when will revolve around bullet construction and shot placement.

To better understand what works in the field without actually being in the field, read what others have written of their experiences under those conditions. There are many books on the subject, for example "Use Enough Gun" by Ruark.

Luckily i get field experience.

 

[Broz]

A big berger has saved my poor shots on a multitude of occasions.
I still value shot placement very highly on my list of priorities, but high energy fragmenting bullets have saved my tail way more than once.

And just about every type of exploding armament.


Luckily i get field experience.

I will agree with this wholeheartedly, If you think those 70+ elk we took last year, shot by people who sign up for management hunts, from 12 yrs old to 80+ all placed their shots perfectly, then you don't have enough real world experience.

I have posted this same thing before, fragmenting bullets make huge wound channels and cover our butts. I have never seen one fail to get through both lungs, and have seen many even penetrate the 50lb mulched feed bag inside elk and still kill them in the immediate area. If you have not seen this wet mulched bag you need to get inside more elk. It is a bullet stopper for sure.

I am no scientist, I am only a guy that takes a lot of elk,and helps other take a lots of elk, each year and have done so for literally 100's of elk.

It is a sad day when we can not consider actual real world experience as valid data. I am proud I do not choose to live in that world.

Jeff

 

[FEENIX]

I will agree with this wholeheartedly, If you think those 70+ elk we took last year, shot by people who sign up for management hunts, from 12 yrs old to 80+ all placed their shots perfectly, then you don't have enough real world experience.

I have posted this same thing before, fragmenting bullets make huge would channels and cover our butts. I have never seen one fail to get through both lungs, and have seen many even penetrate the 50lb mulched feed bag inside elk and still kill them in the immediate area. If you have not seen this wet mulched bag you need to get inside more elk. It is a bullet stopper for sure.

I am no scientist, I am only a guy that takes a lot of elk,and helps other take a lots of elk, each year and have done so for literally 100's of elk.

It is a sad day when we can not consider actual real world experience as valid data. I am proud I do not choose to live in that world.

Jeff

Well said Jeff!

Ed