ADMIN
Administrator
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,224
This is a thread for discussion of the article, Conventional Wisdom , By Josh Benin. Here you can ask questions or make comments about the article.
Conventional Wisdom
- Thread starter ADMIN
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Buzz Saw Effect
Perhaps Benin's debunking something else in his treatment of what he calls "Buzz Saw Effect" (I've never heard the term), but I know the following from experience:
1. Jacketed bullets of at least some constructions can be fired at velocities and twist rates that will cause them to reliably disintegrate rotationally even in flight.
And I know the following from physics:
2. A bullet that disintegrates on contact with a target disperses its energy into the target more quickly and efficiently than one that maintains integrity (or, more obviously, passes through and exits the target with any residual velocity).
I believe physics supports the following statement, which is also backed up by my observations:
3. The rotational velocity at which a bullet will experience jacket failure (if any) decreases as its jacket is exposed to media of increasing viscosity or friction. E.g., it can travel through air at rotational speeds that would cause it to disintegrate if in contact with water.
I understood, based on these points, and on anecdotes, that:
4. Bullets can be fired at rotational speeds that will cause their jacket to disintegrate on contact with solid or liquid targets, and the effect of such bullets on those targets will be more pronounced than the effects of bullets carrying the same energy that pass through the same targets with residual energy.
Are any of these points in dispute?
Perhaps Benin's debunking something else in his treatment of what he calls "Buzz Saw Effect" (I've never heard the term), but I know the following from experience:
1. Jacketed bullets of at least some constructions can be fired at velocities and twist rates that will cause them to reliably disintegrate rotationally even in flight.
And I know the following from physics:
2. A bullet that disintegrates on contact with a target disperses its energy into the target more quickly and efficiently than one that maintains integrity (or, more obviously, passes through and exits the target with any residual velocity).
I believe physics supports the following statement, which is also backed up by my observations:
3. The rotational velocity at which a bullet will experience jacket failure (if any) decreases as its jacket is exposed to media of increasing viscosity or friction. E.g., it can travel through air at rotational speeds that would cause it to disintegrate if in contact with water.
I understood, based on these points, and on anecdotes, that:
4. Bullets can be fired at rotational speeds that will cause their jacket to disintegrate on contact with solid or liquid targets, and the effect of such bullets on those targets will be more pronounced than the effects of bullets carrying the same energy that pass through the same targets with residual energy.
Are any of these points in dispute?
David Fisher
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1
"Another definition of "Overbore" uses something called "Ballistic Efficiency," which is the percentage of the chemical energy stored in the powder charge which gets converted to kinetic energy in the bullet (as opposed to heat, noise, and recoil)."
Correct me if I have this wrong - my last physics course was centuries ago - but isn't the recoil the conservation of momentum effect of accelerating the bullet and thus not at all a waste of energy?
Correct me if I have this wrong - my last physics course was centuries ago - but isn't the recoil the conservation of momentum effect of accelerating the bullet and thus not at all a waste of energy?
