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
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Bullet lethality: energy and velocity
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="MTbackwoods" data-source="post: 1903431" data-attributes="member: 113441"><p>I understand that lethality is not due to one factor. It's a culmination of all things that go into making a good shot. So if we pretend that we have the right bullet, placed in the right spot, with adequate velocity so that the bullet penetrates and expands inside the chest cavity, what is a safe energy number. You can say it's 1,500 for elk and 1,000 for deer. But I want DATA not opinions. If you were to say "I shot this bullet at this mv and this was the result" I can punch the numbers into my calculator and look at the energy number and begin collecting the data to draw my own conclusion. And we can say hydrostatic shock isn't real. That's fine. Hydraulic effects are still present and measureable in liquids when they are disrupted by a projectile. Six of one, half dozen of the other. I personally believe the writings of Nathan Foster and strongly believe more people should give his before mentioned article a look</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MTbackwoods, post: 1903431, member: 113441"] I understand that lethality is not due to one factor. It’s a culmination of all things that go into making a good shot. So if we pretend that we have the right bullet, placed in the right spot, with adequate velocity so that the bullet penetrates and expands inside the chest cavity, what is a safe energy number. You can say it’s 1,500 for elk and 1,000 for deer. But I want DATA not opinions. If you were to say “I shot this bullet at this mv and this was the result” I can punch the numbers into my calculator and look at the energy number and begin collecting the data to draw my own conclusion. And we can say hydrostatic shock isn’t real. That’s fine. Hydraulic effects are still present and measureable in liquids when they are disrupted by a projectile. Six of one, half dozen of the other. I personally believe the writings of Nathan Foster and strongly believe more people should give his before mentioned article a look [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Bullet lethality: energy and velocity
Top