Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
416 Opinions Required
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ricka0" data-source="post: 82359" data-attributes="member: 3086"><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p> <font color="purple"> <strong> In an article in the November, 1947 issue of the American Rifleman magazine, </strong> </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] </font> </font> </font></p><p>1947 pretty much sums it up. Just as I stated before, no modern bonded bullets. The physics, while still high school level, is slightly more complicated. If the bullet doesn't exit the animal – you take the KE of the bullet when it hits the target and subtract the KE left from momentum transfer. Conservation of momentum guarantees the bullet touching the animal has the same momentum when it stops inside the animal. You need to subtract out the KE from the momentum left (the algebra is left as an exercise for the student).</p><p>Taylor's Index is a joke with modern ballistics &amp; bullets. It's not consistent with experimental data on soft tissue and wound channels from hi velocity bullets. [ QUOTE ]</p><p> <font color="purple"> <strong>If there is a discrepancy, it is in comparing bullets with a high tendency to tumble with those that do not. </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>[/ QUOTE ] </font> </font> </strong></p><p></p><p>Who shoots bullets that tumble? The best quote I have ever heard on TI is from the guy on LRH who wrote the ballistics software. He said something like; it at least tells you not to hunt Griz with a .243</p><p>Compare the TI of the Abrams Tank vs. the T-72 and the T-72 looks better while the Sabot DU Abrams round has penetrated two T-72 side by side. Most T-72 projectiles bounced off the Abrams. (OK, so that's because of superior amour, but I can get to brag about our superior tanks, rounds, amour ad optics)</p><p></p><p>Get a 375 RUM and don't look back. Cheaper, more/better components, far superior long range killing power.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ricka0, post: 82359, member: 3086"] [ QUOTE ] <font color="purple"> [b] In an article in the November, 1947 issue of the American Rifleman magazine, [/b] [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] </font> </font> </font> 1947 pretty much sums it up. Just as I stated before, no modern bonded bullets. The physics, while still high school level, is slightly more complicated. If the bullet doesn’t exit the animal – you take the KE of the bullet when it hits the target and subtract the KE left from momentum transfer. Conservation of momentum guarantees the bullet touching the animal has the same momentum when it stops inside the animal. You need to subtract out the KE from the momentum left (the algebra is left as an exercise for the student). Taylor’s Index is a joke with modern ballistics & bullets. It’s not consistent with experimental data on soft tissue and wound channels from hi velocity bullets. [ QUOTE ] <font color="purple"> [b]If there is a discrepancy, it is in comparing bullets with a high tendency to tumble with those that do not. [/ QUOTE ] </font> </font> [/b] Who shoots bullets that tumble? The best quote I have ever heard on TI is from the guy on LRH who wrote the ballistics software. He said something like; it at least tells you not to hunt Griz with a .243 Compare the TI of the Abrams Tank vs. the T-72 and the T-72 looks better while the Sabot DU Abrams round has penetrated two T-72 side by side. Most T-72 projectiles bounced off the Abrams. (OK, so that’s because of superior amour, but I can get to brag about our superior tanks, rounds, amour ad optics) Get a 375 RUM and don't look back. Cheaper, more/better components, far superior long range killing power. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
416 Opinions Required
Top