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
Needed Energy for killing.... is it a myth??
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="Guest" data-source="post: 29599"><p>Looking at energy as a means of penetration, using the bullets shown above it can be determined that energy means little. The "needed" energy to open up a bullet is another matter. If one bullet "needs" 500 fpe to open up and another "needs" 800 fpe to open up then those are the numbers we should consider, not that any bullet requires a certain fpe to be an effective killer of a certain animal. </p><p></p><p>The lower picture shows the bullet hitting the cans at about 1600 FPS. Our purpose of that test was to find the threshold of where the bullet opens up. Obviously it is higher then 1600 FPS. A smaller caliber bullet with a thinner cross section wouldn't require as much energy to open up. This is why one should consider bullet construction, materials and shape more so then just energy created. </p><p></p><p>There is no doubt that both of the examples listed (pictures) show that either of those would go clean through an elk, double lung, broadside. It is also true that the top picture results would cause more trauma then the lower picture shows. </p><p></p><p>My purpose of the 2 pictures was to disprove that energy does not equal penetration. I believe the 2 pictures and data obtained prove that. </p><p></p><p>Don</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Guest, post: 29599"] Looking at energy as a means of penetration, using the bullets shown above it can be determined that energy means little. The "needed" energy to open up a bullet is another matter. If one bullet "needs" 500 fpe to open up and another "needs" 800 fpe to open up then those are the numbers we should consider, not that any bullet requires a certain fpe to be an effective killer of a certain animal. The lower picture shows the bullet hitting the cans at about 1600 FPS. Our purpose of that test was to find the threshold of where the bullet opens up. Obviously it is higher then 1600 FPS. A smaller caliber bullet with a thinner cross section wouldn't require as much energy to open up. This is why one should consider bullet construction, materials and shape more so then just energy created. There is no doubt that both of the examples listed (pictures) show that either of those would go clean through an elk, double lung, broadside. It is also true that the top picture results would cause more trauma then the lower picture shows. My purpose of the 2 pictures was to disprove that energy does not equal penetration. I believe the 2 pictures and data obtained prove that. Don [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Needed Energy for killing.... is it a myth??
Top