bullet weight vs. velocity regarding ME

45_auto

New member
briandg said:
45 auto, at what point did I say that they were the same? I DIDN'T!

I would reference you to your Post #34 above:

briandg said:
Years back, there were two separate means of measuring energy. Kinetic energy and momentum.

Seems that you think that years back there were two separate means of measuring energy, kinetic energy and momentum. How else would you believe that your statement above would be interpreted?

Perhaps you weren't as clear in your postings as you believed.

briandg said:
By the way, using a high school manual to show that your own erroneous interpretation of my own clearly stated information is a classic example of tossing out an argument that doesn't even remotely fit the previous assertion.

If you didn't incorrectly believe that there were two different ways of measuring energy, kinetic energy and momentum, a high school manual wouldn't be necessary.
 

pilpens

New member
So,
1. Is it correct to think that more energy transferred to target means greater effect on target?
2. If a heavy bullet (A) has same KE as a light bullet (B), which bullet would normally transfer more energy to a gelatin target?
3. If a heavy bullet (A) has same Momentum a light bullet (B), which bullet would normally transfer more energy to a gelatin target?
 

oldengineer

New member
So,
1. Is it correct to think that more energy transferred to target means greater effect on target?
2. If a heavy bullet (A) has same KE as a light bullet (B), which bullet would normally transfer more energy to a gelatin target?
3. If a heavy bullet (A) has same Momentum a light bullet (B), which bullet would normally transfer more energy to a gelatin target?

I'm late getting in so I'll take a shot:
1. Yes
2. If both bullets came to a complete stop in the gelatin they would raise the energy of the target equally if they had the same KE entering.
3. Normally the lighter, faster one. A 10kg bullet traveling at .1m/sec has the same momentum as a .001kg bullet traveling at 1000m/sec.
 

briandg

New member
45, you are wrong. You chose to interpret a simple statement in whatever fashion you chose. KE and momentum are different. People can choose to use KE or momentum to measure whatever energy type they want. KE and momentum are two different energy figures that are different, people choose whichever they want.

17 rem, 20 grains at 4,037 = only 12 ft pounds at MxV.

158 grain super duty 158 grain .357 yields 32 at MxV.

They both register about 750 in the method of measure. I've nothing more to say. both measurements of energy and are both viable methods of measuring bullet energy.

Pill pen, look at those facts. a 17 remington will destroy a lot of material upon the tiny point of contact. High velocity is destructive. Shoot a deer with it, and you may not even make it six inches into the carcass. A varmint grenade may not even make it a couple inches. a 17 rem will literally rip a prairie dog to bits.

A .357 loaded to absolute max, as is the buffalo bore, will displace a lot of material, by thumping through it, rather than expending it's energy destroying the tissues that it impacts by means of violence.

It's that simple. Similar calculated energies at extreme, or even smaller variations of velocity and mass can be very different in on target effects. small variations such as in between pistol calibers are what we are talking about, and the other variables involved complicate it. Look up a ballistic pendulum, as was used in the early days of shooting. The pendulum is still used in some applications. It measures MxV and can be used to calculate other energy ratings.

the 500 ne has about 6,000 in energy and the lapua .338 has 7,000. I'm pretty certain that neither of them are interchangeable in use. the 500 will drop a big bull elephant with a single shot to the heart. the lapua isn't suggested for elephant, even though poachers will hunt elephants with full auto AKs firing hundreds of rounds into the beasts.
 

Branko

New member
Word of note; penetrating steel and penetrating fluids is entirely different. Ignoring projectile design for a moment:

Penetration depth in fluids is proportional to m*v, or momentum. Hence, you will find that underwater, a harpoon goes far while a high powered rifle is stopped very quickly, although kinetic energy is fairly similar and the rifle will penetrate steel much better. When penetration in water is measured you will find heavier bullets do better for the same amount of kinetic energy. Research into arrow performance suggests that penetration in flesh scales with m*v^1.2, which is pretty close to momentum.

Penetration of hard solids like, eg. steel depends on velocity much more. The mechanics of tearing up steel plate are just different.

As for "energy expended on target", it is not so simple. A lot of energy is spent on deforming the bullet, or turns into fairly nonproductive heat. Handguns don't have velocities required to produce hydrostatic shock effect. The large kinetic energies of modern handgun rounds reflect the fact we expect to turn a .35 bullet into a .65 bullet in the target and this expansion takes energy. However wound mechanics of handgun rounds are the same - cutting, crushing and tearing tissue.
 

rodfac

New member
For the most part, I'm a 'big bullet but slow', believer, but with modern (in the last 5 years or so) bullets, the 9mm has come into its own.

For the 9mm to compete as a defensive round, it depends on velocity and well designed bullets. Given the same type of well designed bullets, the .45 becomes even more of a great defensive round. In a short statement, a .45 really doesn't need to expand for good defensive use (it's already big enough as proven by 100 years of use, military and civilian).

The 9mm, while enjoying a long history of military use, just doesn't share the .45's reputation for defensive use with FMJ or early JHP designs. Guns chambered and designed for 9mm use, do enjoy a smaller size advantage for use by those who need a smaller grip/frame size.

Given what is generally available in today's hot defensive ammunition market, I'd still pick a good .45 over nearly any 9mm. No matter what trigger system you want, there's a good .45 available: SA, DA/SA, DA only, striker...they're all there and from reputable makers too. So pick what you like in caliber, find an operating system that makes training to proficiency doable for you, and a holster to accommodate CC; then practice with all the ammunition you can afford.

For me, in the confines of a slit trench, in a confined dark alley, at bad breath distances while changing a tire on a remote country road, nothing beats a .45.

JMHO and YMMV, Rod
 

Branko

New member
I have never been in a gunfight and almost certainly never will, but I figure all the handgun calibers which have seen major military and police use over the last 100 years would serve me adequately well.

For handgun hunting where penetration is important, you generally want to go with heavy bullets (increasing momentum) as they'll penetrate deeper compared to lighter ones. No handgun will produce the "goo inside" effect of a high speed rifle round impact, they just aren't capable of the velocity.
 

briandg

New member
Both posts, excellent information,good work and accurate. I only went into the two types of energy measurements. Regarding the harpoon, yes. A long solid projectile with the sectional density of a crowbar would plunge through.water, but take that same mass and turn it into a cannonball,and every characteristic of the test changes, because the projectile was changed.

When compound bows were first available here, a guy set up shop and put a display in his shop. Two large, loosely filled sandbags. One had an arrow punched through it and the other had a little hole with a black ring marked around it. He claimed to have shot the arrow through the bag, and used a "deer rifle" on the other. The bullet supposedly didn't make it through. Myself, I didn't really believe his story, but the principle is sound. I could push an arrow through the bag, even. The bullet will either disintegrate or expend all of its energy tossing the sand around.

The point made about energy on target is so important, as Brandon pointed out. Ever wondered just how much chemical potential energy is present in ten grains of powder? Very little. Then, half of that energy is expended in recoil. Take a hollow point bullet that you have tested, set a steel ball on top of a new one, and hammer on it until you have deformed it about the same amount as the fired bullets. You see, only a fraction of that ten grains of powder is actually used on the target. Between heat loss, loss through mechanics, loss through friction with the air and so forth, and loss spent on popping open that jacket, all you have left is a little bit of power. A typical person with a sharp half inch rod could punch though a man's torso with no difficulty.

Pilpen, you asked at some point whether two rounds, one heavy and another slow, would release the same amount of energy on the target.

The truth is that if the have equal momentum, with no other complications that will absorb energy,they will both transfer the same amount of energy as calculated by momentum. When measured by kinetic energy, the lighter, faster bullet will have the same amount of momentum, but when measured as kinetic energy, the number will be higher for the fast bullet.

As we've discussed, high velocity is a destructive force. An ultra high velocity light round equal in momentum to a low velocity heavy round will create massive destruction of tissues. Blood will be turned into mist, bone will be ground to sand, exit and entrance wounds will be large tears. Heavy and slow tend to just push their way through.

Experiment a little. Take water balloons. See what a standard non-hollow point pistol bullet does. Then try the smallest rifle round you can get. Ultra velocity rifle rounds don't splash.
 

pilpens

New member
Thanks to all for this very informative thread.
Now, I need to search for the fastest .45 230 grain hollowpoint which produces .22lr felt recoil in my small CCW.
 
Last edited:

briandg

New member
You'll find plenty of people who will offer them to you at a reasonable price, just send your credit card number to them and wait for the six month shipping period. Don't worry about it, it's legit. It's endorsed by good housekeeping.

There's a guy who is selling reloading kits for .22 lr online, something like fifty.

You grind up matches and push the stuff inside the rim. Add firecracker powder and his special pellets.

Then there's the guy who is selling uber deadly shotgun slugs that will gut a watermelon into pieces. Seriously, an ordinary shotgun slug, due to all of its qualities turns melons into mist.



I read an article once about the three types of researchers. There are the jello junkies, the autopsy addicts, and number nerds.

Seriously,you have to start at design and jelo testing. When actual shootings occur, you have to compare what you expect to see to the actual wounds. Once enough time passes and hundreds or thousands of shootings can be compared, you get an opportunity to hear the "facts" from the men with the spread sheets. We have heard that statistically, the "best" combat round was .357 magnum in 125 grains. I don't know, maybe it is. Maybe a jeep is the best car. Maybe a Lexus. Just get one, choose carefully, train, and carry it. Then you start living on the foosa side of the island.
 

Boncrayon

New member
A lighter grain bullet will move faster than a heavy grain bullet making a flatter path to the target. Gravity effects are the same, but velocity is the key. On a flat plane, both bullets will hit the ground at the same time. Energy is from the mass of the bullet and powder grain.
 

briandg

New member
Trajectory will be a function of cuts gravity
Within certain limitations, when a a bullet reaches the highest point of its trajectory,it will.go down to.earth at the same rate of speed and acceleration as one that is just dropped. High velocity streamlined bullets stay at higher speeds longer, and travel to.target in less time. Personally, I look at better bullet performance. I'd prefer to use a well designed, streamlined bullet to pressing my charges to the limit. But then, lots of people do it all in puts it of power, speed, and flat shooting.
 

B.L.E.

New member
45_auto said:
Only way to get Joules by dividing by 2 would be to use kilograms for bullet mass.

No, you also have to use meters per second along with kilograms of mass in order to get Joules (watt-seconds) of energy.

Mass measured in slugs and velocity measured in feet per second gives foot-pounds of energy.
 

P71pilot

New member
This really is simple. Faster, objects penetrate hard objects better (metal, bones, etc..), but heavier slower projectiles penetrate soft targets better (flesh, water)

Lighter faster projectiles have less recoil, because it requires less force to get the smaller projectile moving at a high rate of speed. So 5.7 has less recoil than 9mm or .45, .17hmr and .22mag have less recoil than a .25acp or .380

.556 has less recoil than a 7.62x39, and 30-06 has less recoil than a 12gauge slug.

Personally I like heavier and slower better. Because I won't really ever find myself shooting at armored targets (and if I do, I'll just aim for the softest weakest point, and hit it multiple times)

Sectional density and momentum are important when it comes to shooting living things. If a black bear charges you or is attacking you, and you can only get off one shot to the heart, I will bet you everything I own that a big meplate .45acp slug will stop that heart sooner than any 5.7 fired from and weapon, pistol or p90. Bigger holes bleed more. And heavier bullets penetrate stretchy soft stuff better than light bullets
 

simonrichter

New member
Seems that some people think that you have to divide by 2 in the metric system, some think you have to divide by 1000. Some seem to think that projectile mass is commonly expressed in kilograms (I believe that simonrichter is European), some think that it is commonly expressed in grams (not sure if branko is European or not). Isn't keeping your units straight grand?

the metric system, one more time: e = m x v^2 / 2

mass: kilograms (1 kilogram = 1.000 grams)
velocity: meter per second
energy: joule

So YES, you do have to divide by 2. And IF you take in the weight in grams instead of kilograms, THEN you ALSO have to divide by 1.000 afterwards in order to get the right amount of joules.

1 ft/lbs equals roughly 1,36 joule, btw
 
Top