This post is not intended to start WWIII or to try and convert anyone from using the type of bullet they like but I've seen physics misquoted and used in a way not relevant to the applied physics of terminal ballistics.

First off you need to start by understanding the Law of Conservation of Energy which states That " Energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transferred".

This post is primarily concerned with the difference of using expanding jacketed ammo as opposed to hard cast. The first thing to consider is whether or not the jacketed bullet used is proper for the application, in other words will it expand as it's supposed to at the impact velocity and yet maintain enough wait for penetration. I've read the term energy "dump" and that is a slang phrase which has no real meaning. As for the law of conservation this is where it comes into play. Pulling the trigger on a firearm starts a sequence of events that all pertain to and are governed by this law.

First is the fact that you are transferring energy from your finger to the trigger, this allows the stored energy in the hammer spring to release and allows the hammer to strike the primer. All of the above are examples of mechanical transfer of energy.

Second, once the primer is struck the chemical energy stored in it converts to heat which ignites the powder (also chemical) and then transfers it's energy to the bullet which becomes a form of mechanical energy again. So we've seen energy not only transfer several times but convert twice.

This last one is where the point of contention comes in. The reason for this post was another post showing a pendulum being hit by a bullet, this is irrelevant. Unless your shooting squirrels with a centerfire the animal your shooting is stationary. The pendulum does have meaning in the way that it is also accepting the transferred energy from the bullet but since it's swinging it has also become the projectile. A good example of this is to shoot a chunk of 4x4 or 6x6 that is squared and most likely the block will blow off and the bullet may or may not penetrate completely. If you shoot a post buried in the ground with the same gun odds are it will go straight through.

The last part of this is basicly two parts, first is energy transfer, which in this case is mechanical to bilogical/chemical. If you shoot an animal with a .475 cal handgun using a 400gr hardcast and the impact velocity is 1200fps your energy will be roughly 1300ftlb's. If this bullet blows straight through and exits at 1100fps then you have only transferred a little over 100ftlb's of energy. If you shoot the same animal with a 400gr jacketed and it opens correcly and exits at 400fps you have tranferred a little over 800ftlb's of energy into the animal. So what do you gain from the jacketed that you didn't from the hardcast? More energy tranferred means a more massive shock wave going through the animal and this is why alot of times they drop in there tracks or stop after being hit. The second part of this pertains to the shock factor and wound channel. I've heard countless times that if a bullet is close to a half inch going in why do I need more coming out? The answer is you don't, but if a expanding bullet works correctly it will gain roughly 1/3rd in diameter so if 1/2" is good 3/4" is better. Now for the shock factor, when the bullet opens up in a body you need to remember that all living things are made mostly of water. When the bullet encounters these fluid and expands it rapidly slows not only cutting a larger wound channel but also creating a shock wave just like an earthquake makes a tsunami except more violent. I've seen many animals that have been hit in places other than the spine or vitals go straight down and when gutted the vitals and any other soft organ tissue in the area were jello.

Whether you put any weight into what I said is up to you but next time your in a swimming pull try this, first throw a jab under water with a closed fist, next do it with an open hand and last cup your hand. If you do this close to the surface or in a bath tub you'll not only feel the resistance but you'll see the difference in water displaced. The first would be equal to a hardcast, second an open jacketed bullet and third the cup of a hollow point.

This is not to say hardcast are not effective since they obviously can be but with everything there advantages and disadvantages. If you use the wrong jacketed bullet for animal type or velocity you may have a bullet failure or you may pencil hole it. The hardcast will penetrate deeper and can be usefull for heavy bones and awkward angles. The final decision is up to each shooter but all I'm trying to do here is provide information to allow for informed decisions. The jacketed bullets we have today are far superior to what we had even ten or twenty years ago this is why many African PH's have changed on buffalo from strictly using solids to using a soft point followed by solids or just soft points.

Are you serious? Transfered 100-ft lbs? So according to this, a 100 fps translates to 100-ft-lbs? Where did this come from?

Yes indeed physics does apply, unfortunately you have missed the mark in applying physics. A perfect inelastic collision the colliding bodies stick together.
A bullet strike is an inelastic collision and energy is not conserved in inelastic collisions. A elastic collision the colliding bodies remain in motion after the collision and energy is conserved in this type collision

Momentum is conserved in all collisions. The type of bullet used has nothing whatsoever to do with energy conservation or energy transfer.

MacPherson spends an entire chapter explaining this.




This is a diagram of a ballistics pendulum and it shows conclusively that energy is not conserved but momentum is conserved. Energy mostly transforms (not transferring) into other forms of energy, mostly thermal, some to sound, etc.



Kinetic energy is not the primary factor in creating a wound channel as these picture clearly demonstrate

This one is of the exit in the offside rib cage of a 6X7 bull Elk. I am holding a loaded 300 win mag for size comparison. The impact velocity was about 2600 FPS calculating to 2700 FPE at impact




This is the exit of a 440 grain flat point hard cast at an advertised velocity of 950 FPS for a calculated 888 FPE
Again the loaded 300 win for size comparison
This is the same elk as the picture above



The pictures clearly show that the bullet with the most energy created the smaller wound

JWP,

Interesting data - I have been looking for MacPherson's book (at reasonable prices, but have not been able to find it yet).

I agree that KE is not a reliable indicator of terminal performance, but your picture evidence is not as clear cut as you would portray it...you show exit wounds only, and not the wound channel through the organ system. Are we to assume that bullet path was the same and encountered the same structures (bone, cartilage, etc)? Also, my intuition suggests that the elk was shot with the rifle cartridge first, rendering the internals into soup - and then a follow-up shot was taken with the HC bullet, either as a finisher, or as a ballistic test...in either case, the "test" medium was drastically different from one shot to the next.

No real dog in this fight - I think both jacketed and cast have their places and best use, given the game, conditions, caliber, and weapon used.

I can assure you that the damage through out was larger with the handgun wound, unfortunately I was unable to get more photgrapghs, because the animal was gutted in the field

Energy is "never lost" is a true statement, by stating that energy"" is only "transfered" makes this an inaccurate statement. There are different types of energy and energy can be transformed other forms of energy and does not "only transfer"

ME has little to do with it. It always comes down to the bullet or boolit and where and when energy is applied INSIDE the animal.
Take 3 bullets of different construction, all with the exact same ME. One explodes on the skin, another does all damage inside and another pokes a hole.
You need energy with any gun but it is how and where it is applied. It is false to assume energy is lost when a good boolit exits an animal because if it did the work in the animal, you need no more. A bad boolit is another story if nothing is done to the animal in passage. A boolit that stops has no such thing as DUMP. It can fail for a lot of reasons and can lose all energy applied by breaking up or stopping on bone.
Bullet construction is always what makes them work FOR THE VELOCITY SHOT. Even a large bore rifle can fail with the wrong bullet with tons of energy on the wrong animal. Hit a deer with it and it is mush, hit a buf and he will stomp you into the ground.
Shoot a deer with a .50 caliber revolver and some do not even flinch. You will destroy their insides but you do not blow them like a pendulum. Yes, you can use such extreme energy that an animal will blow into mist but none get knocked over or pushed across the ground. Even a tank hit with the best does not get knocked over.
Exit holes and internal damage is based on the boolit used and the velocity shot and where energy is used.
A larger hole from a revolver means nothing compared to a rifle because the rifle might have done twice the internal damage from energy applied then the revolver boolit. The revolver boolit is larger on exit because it was soft enough to expand. It was larger to start with.
Junk science, pendulums, steel plates, water bottles, jello.
Real science is an animal on the ground fast with a huge blood trail.
Inelastic collisions and elastic collisions means bone or lungs. Your boolit must weather both.

430Man:"It is false to assume energy is lost when a good boolit exits an animal because if it did the work in the animal, you need no more. A bad boolit is another story if nothing is done to the animal in passage."

To me that wraps it up.

To utilize which ever mathematical jargon you are fond of, you have to first match the bullet to the game species.

That's the problem with almost any formula.
Numbers are thrown out, but no real effort was used to quantify the bullet or the use of the bullet.


A 30-06 with 150gr FMJ spitzers, for example isn't a hunting bullet like a 30-06 with 150-165gr Core-lokts.
It isn't designed to be.

When used on deer, the FMJ probably will just squirt on through, with little overall damage, compared to a 150gr Core-lokt.

Did the FMJ "waste" its energy in passing?.
If the animal is still running, yes.
Due to poor bullet choice for the task at hand.

Did the Core-lokt waste it's energy when it expanded and past through?
No, not if the animal is dead.

Did the Core-lokt then have MORE THAN ENOUGH energy to kill the deer since it expanded and still past through?
Yes, but the deer is dead, and that is what we are after.
The more dead the better.

If the Core-lokt '06 passed through, thus probably having MORE than enough "whatever" to kill the deer, could a similarly constructed, but less powerfull round kill a deer?

Yes. That is where handguns come in.
Although less "powerfull", with properly constructed bullets,
in a proper loading, they generate ENOUGH "oomph", to cleanly kill a given game species.

Could a .357 make a nastier wound than a .30-06?
It could within different designs of bullets.

Does that mean the .357 kills better?
Of course not.
Equally as well?
Sure within it's limitations, with properly designed bullets.

Here's why in my opinion ft/lbs of energy is bunk.A 22-250 with a 60gr projectile @ 3500ft/s produces 1741 ft/lbs of energy while the load you speak of .475 @ 1200ft/s with a 400 gr projectile produces only 1300 ft/lbs of energy.It is what it is but I'd rather face critters with the .475,again just my opinion.

But if energy is the way you have written wouldn't any projectile that does more than just fall out the off side be a waste?

LOL, I really don't care about the book my thought is based on one of the most basics laws of physics which I was schooled in thoroughly and backed up by ballisiticians and accomplished hunters. As far as the amount of a little over 100ftlbs if you look again the velocity was 1200fps and the energy 1300ftlbs so if you drop 100fps of velocity and extrapolate you get roughly 108ftlbs of energy loss if your run it through a ballistics program it shows 222ftlbs but for purposes of keeping things simple I just extrapolated. I love how bent out of shape you guys get when someone threatens your way of thinking. Why do you suppose the Geneva convention outlawed the use of expanding projectiles in all of our conventional ammo and use only fmj? Survivability, you have a better chance of surviving a hit from a non expanding bullet than an expanding.

Mark Hampton said it best in his book when he said:

"Let me point out that big cast bullets in a revolver essentially leave a half-inch diameter holes in animals but in most cases they don't kill quickly. I(Mark) have seen more than 100 head of medium-sized game shot multiple times, in the right spot, with these big, hard cast bullets, in both .44 and .45 caliber revolvers, and it never ceases to amaze me by how far the game will go afterward. Unless a shoulder or spine is broken, or a brain shot is made, the chase will be on. Honestly, a good broadhead from an arrow will kill game more quickly. All of you guys who are emotionally attached to your cast bullets for hunting, please save the phone calls, emails, and letters. A good expanding jacketed bullet such as the Hornady XTP and Winchester's Partition Gold causes more damage to vital organs and simply kills faster"
Handgun Hunting pg.15 by Mark Hampton

I also showed some of the posts from the last time we had this arguement to the ballistician at Nosler and he laughed, he is the gentleman that heads their Custom Ammo dept.

Another friend of mine that was with Leupold at the time had the same reaction. He also couldn't believe the emotional attachment to cast bullets and the inability to be open minded and civil enough to see there is more than one option and some may actually be better.

As for this McPherson guy I don't really care. I haven't read his stuff and I don't intend too. I have a strong enough applied physics background to walk on my own feet and I am more than aware that scientist seem to forget the most basic laws and tweak things to fit their agenda. Case and point global warming, you have some scientist saying it's real and man made, some say it's real but a natural cycle of the planet and others say it does not exist at all.

I started this post as an educational post but it amazes me how you guys circle the wagons when someone has a line of thought different from your own. I even acknowledged that I wasn't trying to sway you from your opinion but rather offer the counter point of view for everyone to take the way they wish. I have a very strong math and science background and I believe if you follow the numbers and the basic laws of science it's a realisitic value of the truth.

As far as KE it's only one part of the equation, I believe I mentioned the bullet had to match the load or it would fail to work properly.

430 Man - I agree with the 50 caliber revolver statement. I would think a 90 to 120MM shell would probably knock them over.

I've seen a big man (6'3" 270#s) take a blast from a 12 gauge at about 15' that knocked him to the ground – another fellow was on a dead run and took a 9mm in the butt cheek and it spun him 180* and down he went. If these guys would have had 4 legs they might have been able to take the hit and still stand - that's probably the biggest reason a fairly small 4 legged animal can take a hit from a large caliber revolver using a large metplat – they have 4 legs, not 2.

I like JWP475’s explanation – If you ever are so unfortunate as to take a round, you might think you just got a hot branding iron put to ya.

all i know is using a handgun i may hunt big enough stuff that i want to use a non expandable but in a hunt that expensive i'll use something more reliable than a hardcast, that said, i've killed well more than enough animals in the 500 to 2000 lb range to know that i really prefer an expandable round if at all possible. heck, my son's bearhunt which may end up being televised on one of the outdoors shows on sportsmans channel illustrates this clearly and is yet one more of the quick DRT type kills i've gotten with good expandables. i've just gotten more of them with this than hardcasts.

which is very different than saying that hardcasts don't work.

"I love how bent out of shape you guys get when someone threatens your way of thinking","I even acknowledged that I wasn't trying to sway you from your opinion but rather offer the counter point of view for everyone to take the way they wish" so who says we weren't offering a counterpoint to your statement?

But here's one question I would like to know how you came up with the numbers for,"If you shoot an animal with a .475 cal handgun using a 400gr hardcast and the impact velocity is 1200fps your energy will be roughly 1300ftlb's. If this bullet blows straight through and exits at 1100fps then you have only transferred a little over 100ftlb's of energy. If you shoot the same animal with a 400gr jacketed and it opens correcly and exits at 400fps you have tranferred a little over 800ftlb's of energy into the animal." I would be curious to know if anyone has ever clocked the ft/s of a projectile coming out of an animal.

Damn, that must have been a big dude and heavy loaded shotgun. Another basic law of physics is that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" so either a much bigger guy shot him or the guy shooting hit the ground too. It could also be that since people are the weakest of all animals with the lowest pain tolerance these guys were reacting to the mental shock and pain of being hit as much as anything.

Why limit yourself? MacPhersen is the real deal with regards to terminal ballistics and is certainly not lightly regarded.

With the length of your diatribe, I would say you are the one is a bit bent out of shape. You're cherry picking your research material. I would seriously suggest reading MacPhersen.

Not trying to be argumentative, but you really are presenting only one side of the debate here. I don't know many in the know who put much stock in energy as a way of rating lethality.

I have nothing against expanding bullets, my only issue with them are their unreliability at the limited velocities we can attain with our revolvers (this obviously doesn't apply to single shot "pistols" chambered in rifle cartridges). They don't always expand, and when they don't they make a poor solid. If I am starting at a half-inch in diameter, I see no benefit to expansion, especially when a heavy bullet with a large meplat does considerable damage to flesh.

I'm not bent out of shape I'm actually laughing along with the others I mentioned. There are many more of the accomplished hunters on here that feel the same as I do but they know where the conversation will lead so they figure why bother, but for me I figure both sides need to be told. I know your feelings on jacketed bullets and I have no issue with that and I even stated both types of bullets have their pro's and cons but somewhere along the line that was missed. What brought this on was the post on the hunting forum about the 357 and then the picture of a swinging pendulum and I understand perfectly where he's coming from as I've studied physics quite a bit in the past but animals don't swing and don't get knocked over just from being hit by a bullet unless you hit the sping or a major bone that stops them from being able to stand. What generally puts them down is the internal shock wave from a bullet and different bullets produce different shock waves and if you take it step further you get into the frequency of the shock wave which is determined in this case by bullet design and shape and velocity as well as placement. A higher frequency shock wave will do more internal damage than a low frequency wave which is why a small caliber high velocity rifle round will do more internal damage than a slower larger projectile.

How much "shock" do you think a revolver is imparting to an animal? At the subdued (relatively speaking) velocities we are able to achieve, I don't think much shock is being imparted.

"...Now for the shock factor, when the bullet opens up in a body you need to remember that all living things are made mostly of water. When the bullet encounters these fluid and expands it rapidly slows not only cutting a larger wound channel but also creating a shock wave..... "


Once expansion has been achieved, the bullet is now in effect, a "solid". It is now frozen in that caliber.
SUDDENLY you have a larger caliber traveling through space.
If it happens INSTANTLY, like an explosion, then there may be some shock damage, like with a ballistic tip.
Most hunting rounds appear to be a "controlled expansion" design that spreads this expansion over a longer period.

If you start with that "larger caliber" already, and drive it to the same velocity (that is key), damage should be very similar.

In my experience it IS very similar, at least when comparing large solids, to small expanding.
A .480 Ruger shooting WFN solids, equals the damage caused by a .357 Mag with a quality JSP that has expanded. (Through a deers lungs).
WHEN both are traveling at the SAME velocity.


Now the .480 Solid has enough "beans", to penetrate the deer from any angle nature supplies me.
The .357 JSP, while more than adequate on SOME shots, is NOT suitable for ALL shots.
That is why many hunters carry solids.

Now you are comparing a 400gr .475 solid, and a.400gr .475 JHP, traveling at the same velocity.
And the .475 JHP expands, and exits at .50cal, then of course it "should" kill quicker.
It is now a larger caliber, and should let more blood out.


If you took a .50 cal bullet, and drove it to the EXACT same velocity that the .475 cal bullet was traveling, when it expanded, then the damage SHOULD be the same, assuming frontal area had the same shape.

I can't help but think you are mixing rifle bullet and handgun bullet science here(maybe I should specify revolver bullet).
From my experience, handgun ammo(except contender type semi-rifle ammo) rarely achieves the kind of velocity, to have any real arguement towards "Shockwave".

well, there's not if you're using hardcasts, they do kill and kill reliably but i've seen many a large animal hit with an expandable show a much larger reaction to an expandable than a hardcast and if my son's bearhunt is any indication a handgun imparts a large amount of shock at 1800fps with a barnes xbp bullet.

i would argue that there's no difference b/w rifle and handgun science, there's just simply potential energy and the need for an appropriate bullet to "channel" or "change" the potential energy into tissue damage. it's no more complicated than that. wound channel is also determined by velocity, like it or not, and that doesn't matter if it's a rifle or a pistol. it's just a question of which projectile is appropriate for which game animal.

whats funny is the hard cast folks never say jacketed don't work the just say they are unreliable,i.e.have failures to open,fragment or penetrate deep enough.I have shot enough jacketed to have witnessed all three and yes I know all jacketed are not created equal.

the jacketed posse claims every animal shot with a hard cast must be tracked and most are never recovered.

I have lost animals to both due to shot placement or other unknown reasons,since if you don't recover the animal,you truly don't know.

In any case I am glad animals can't read because if they could they'd be laughing at all of us.

"a small caliber high velocity rifle round will do more internal damage than a slower larger projectile"that may be so but it doesn't mean that the damage will be in the vitals.A 60gr @ 3500 will never equal a 180gr @ 2650.

The velocity potential is MUCH greater with rifles and this is a pretty significant factor IMO.

That's what I meant by the "difference in science".
Velocity difference between rifle and handgun can be well over 1000fps plus on impact.
Comparing JHP handgun to solid handgun is one thing,
but comparing JSP Rifle to solid handgun is another.

At least when trying to quantify "shockwave" damage.
Thats what I was getting at.

Amen

No doubt the only absolute truth in this whole post!

Whether shooting cast or jacketed, the bullet specs need to be up for job - meplat, profile, bullet hardness, expansion stability, and velocity of impact. That's why we shoot in the offseason, test in media/varmints, and share our experiences. So that the data we compile collectively is not just "I shot this deer one time and it ______"

Horse crap, that's what started all this, is the hard cast elite's putting down the jacketed bullets everytime they are brought up. I've always said I feel there is a place for both bullets and I even load both types of bullets. I've never said I would feel defensless with hard cast but at the same time not all jacketed bullets are equal and they don't all just fold up like they did in the days of Keith or Capstick. They both have pros and cons as I've said a hundred times but no one wants to read that part it's just the fact that I've offered an alternate way of thinking that has threatened them.

I even stated last week I'd be loading some 255gr CP's for my 44spcl and some 265's for my Walker conversion because at lower velocities they will penetrate further and whereas the 44 will be a back up gun I want that. The Walker I'm going with lead because they recommend not using jacketed because of possible pressure spikes from different copper alloys and wall thickness.

I could care less if someone hunts with cast but my point has always been that there is more options than just them out there in many cases if the bullet is selected properly and is constructed properly it can outperform hard cast when it comes to terminal ballistics. I remember one jab I took from you guys when I said I wouldn't have had a problem going after grizzly with my 460 S&W and 260gr Partitions running 2000fps even though those ballistics match some big bore carbines used for the same. But yet I was chastized for such a thought.

I think you should re read what I and others have said when this subject has come up before and see who's only seeing things one way. Whitworth said I should read McPhersons book maybe you guys should read Marks, I tend to think he's a much more accomplished handgun hunter than McPherson although I could be wrong. But the bottom line is I don't need a book to tell me what is fact, and if I were going to read a book it would be a text book to refresh my memory but I would still make my own judgments as I have.

This has been an entertaining read. Still, you won't talk me into shooting naked boolits and I won't convince those who do to do otherwise. One thing that just plain pisses me off though are those who would look down upon me merely because I won't use their boolit. I've butchered enough critters to know that my choices work, and my choice is jacketed PERIOD. If I feel the need for less expansion I will use the XTP MAG rather than the XTP. As said, I would rather be shot with a hard cast than an XTP any day.

Let me just be clear I would rather not be shot with anything---

But I will say I have seen Hornady XTP bullets do very bad things to critters.

Second they don't leave that wax stuff in my barrel and all that smoke in my face.

If you like cast bullets choot-em

For me I will stick with the XTP in the wheel guns.

The bottom line to this post is to make people stop and think. Don't choose a bullet style because I like it or because another hunter or gunsmith likes it. Think about which bullet makes sense in your situation, and this is especially directed to newcomers of the sport. When you start using something just because someone else says so your a sheep. Think things through and try different things at the range, see what's accurate in your gun, shoot into different media and think about what the animals you hunt are really built like.

All too often some of the ego's in this sport and actually in all parts of life try to impose their beliefs and thinking on others. It happens in archery with Traditional vs Compound, light fast arrows vs slow heavy ones. Rifle hunters vs Handgun hunters, Traditional vs modern muzzleloaders. Everyone has an opinion and is entitled to that opinion but they aren't entitled to shove that on others or to be critical of others for chosing differently.

God gave you a brain so use it, collect information from many sources then go back to basics and figure for yourself and then decide what you think will work best for you. I have no problems with guys that hunt with cast if that's their thing but at the same time I don't expect to get a raft of crap as I have on this site because I point out the downfalls of a particular item or because I point out my personal experiences.

In this case I pointed out two of the most basic laws of physics and they are what they are, they don't change and they aren't negotiable. If you use common sense and really think things through the science behind what I've said is sound but as I've said more times than I can count everything no matter what it is has it's pro's and cons there is nothing in this world is perfect and that especially goes for anything man made.

And the jacketed folks don't slam the hardcast folks?

Dead is dead reguardless of projectile.I'm with the others I don't want to be shot if I can help it.

It's always this topic that causes debate,lets find a new one say specialtys and bottle neck cartridge "handguns" v/s revolvers and straightwall cartridge handguns.

Ah yes what an example we've set for the new comers.

Well I started this post out saying I wasn't trying to start a fight and I've been fair right down the line with everything and just wrote the facts as they are. I you doubt my science print it out and take it to the local college physics dept and ask them or even a HS physics teacher, If I got something wrong I'm a big enough man to admit so but I don't see where I did. I figured out a long time ago no one knows it all and if you allow yourself you'll learn something new every day and sometimes you'll learn from the most least likely source, the greenest guy or by accident but you have to be open minded which all I've seen on the majority of replies to this post is closed mindedness and irrational statements.

I flat said I didn't have a problem with those that used cast nor was I trying to convert them. I honestly can't remember one of these debates that got heated that didn't start because someone became defensive because someone actually had a different opinion to offer. I got a phone call this morning telling me to check this out because the buzzards were circling and they were right. These fights didn't even occur until a couple years ago, for the 4yrs before that I don't remember anything other than respectful conversation with one exception that was stupid when a member was singled out and attacked for his personality. I figured we might have a good debate but I wasn't looking for a fight but I never have and never will back away from one. If you look at the immediate replies to my post that set the tone for this thread and it's a tone present on one active and one recent thread. As far as I'm concerned Gregg or Gary can lock this because it's useless to try and have an adult lively debate about any subject that may be the least bit touchy without it going to hell.

Aww, hell. It's the Hatfields and McCoys part deux...

Dang Cotton, don't start a new feud - especially one where I'm gonna be split down the middle! Yep - the single shot SP's have their place in my heart and safe as well - 'Tenders, Encores, XP's, oh yes. But there's something magical about that wheelgun. See what you started!

As for the newcomers (or anyone else), find the most accurate load in your gun, place the bullet of whichever composition you choose through the vitals, and go collect your game.

Good advice and I think I mentioned the same thing in so many words. Come to think of it my family is from KY, WV, and TN. Maybe there is a relation in my ancestory to the Hatfields or McCoys.

I agree, this has been a relatively civilized exchange of differences of opinion on what often can be a very hot topic. Kudos to all involved.

I consider this book a test book, since it explains in detail how Duncan developed the ONLY ballistics math model that has been proven to be 100 % accurate in predicting the penetration and wound channel in ballistics media

This is not some hunters view, it is completely scientific and scientificaly correct





Inelastic Collisions

Yes, it has been fairly civil, although the base premise is seriously flawed right out the gate.

Energy is defined as the capacity of a physical system to do work. Energy is transferred from one form to another, i.e. potential, kinetic, light, thermal(heat), mechanical, etc. Energy IS NOT transferred from one body to another. This is where the Law of Conservation of MOMENTUM comes into play. And yes, the ballistic pendulum has EVERYTHING to do with it. In your example, the hammer is considered a physical system, which at rest under the sear has its energy as potential. The spring is an external force which acts on the hammer once the sear is released. The hammer's potential energy is transferred to mechanical and kinetic energy for the duration of the angular travel around the hammer pin. Once the hammer strikes the firing pin or primer, momentum is transferred to the the object being struck and once again, the hammer's energy is potential. Now, the mass of most firearms is significantly greater than the hammer, so the velocity component is negligible; and frankly is quite rapidly overcome by the thrust of the weapon rearwards in response of the gas and projectile exiting the muzzle. I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible, but the spring is also considered a physical system.

The point of contention as you put it Rod, is when the projectile arrives at the intended target. The kinetic energy of the projectile, which is usually increased to promote sales of newer and "better" cartridges, is transferred to various other FORMS OF ENERGY, such as the above mentioned heat, sound, and potential if the projectile does come to rest in the body of the game. The MOMENTUM of the projectile is transferred to the game; again most game animals are significantly greater in mass than the projectiles used to bring them to bag. Therefore, the velocity after the collision does not tend to "move" them. Over-matching bullets for game animals rarely occurs, but makes for some spectacular kills on varmints. One case in point was when I applied about 1,700 ft-lbs of kinetic energy (a calculated number) to a cow elk with a 400 grain Speer Gold Dot from my .475 Linebaugh. The bullet broke the left femur and was recovered under the hide of the right shoulder. If there was a shred of truth (which there is not) of energy transfer between bodies; I hit that girl with about three horsepower. One unit of horsepower is equal to the power needed to lift 550 pounds one foot in one second. I should have moved that 500 pound cow at least three feet by increasing her potential energy by converting it from kinetic energy. Your wooden block analogy is misunderstood in that the mass of the blocks is not proportionately large enough to negated the velocity following the collision. Although they do move, the relative velocity is much slower. Setting the post in the ground allows transfer of momentum to the ground which as everyone should know by now has the mass necessary to negate the after collision velocity.

Now regarding the cast versus jacketed bullet discussion. Yes, one needs to match the bullet to the game and cast bullets are wonderful if used properly. Show me someone who complains about smoke and leading and I will show you someone who has most likely not taken the time or doesn't know how to properly use cast bullets. I think both types have their place and use them as I see fit. However, any situation I need penetration, the cast (solid) is going to win out over jacketed. Large flat meplats create tremendous wound channels for their size; but that is a topic for another thread.

Elastic And Inelastic Collisions

I appreciate your tone about this Hitman and this is where I wanted this to go in the first place. I'm not saying the energy it's self is the killer but I have to disagree on the energy transfer. It's no different than if you get hit by a car or a person, the energy from the car or the person is transferred to you but even that is splitting hairs on what I was getting at and is only a portion of the issue. I contend that the more energy is transferred if the bullet opens correctly and thus the internal shockwave will be greater. This dosn't even have much to do with wound channels although the wound channel will be larger if the bullet works properly.

What I and others are looking at is that when the bullet opens and deceleration is increased the internal shock wave is much greater and I have on a first hand basis seen vitals in tact but turned to mush from the internal shock wave. This is more prevalent in rifle kills but also applies to handguns. I know there are two lines of thinking on this but I think I'm right on this one.

As far as cast goes I never said they wouldn't kill which is why I do have some loaded but figure that even in a general sense if a .500" hole is good a 3/4" hole is better. I also acknowledged that cast will generally out penetrate most jacketed bullets especially at slower velocities. I will not and have not denied that hard cast are more predictable in their behaviour from some jacketed but jacketed bullet technology is not what it was and that is one of the thing I'm trying to show.

In Peter Capsticks books I read about bullets "cratering", basicly expanding and coming apart on animals such as lions without so much as penetrating the hide or if they did then barely. I've shot three large animals with an average soft point bullet from Hornady, nothing special but these bullets doubled in size and penetrated like there was no tomorrow.

First was an Aisian water buffalo weighing in at about 2K. I was shooting a 458 Lott running a 500gr rnsp at about 2300fps and this was before the interlock design. I shot the bull uphill at about 60yds and the bullet penetrated almost 3 feet before shattering the spine. I still have the bullet and it's in suprisingly good condition. It stayed in tact for the most part but doubled in diameter. The second was the same load on a 700lb Feral hog and this time it was a hard quarting shot that penetrated from just in front of the left hind leg and was found in the shield in front of the right front leg.

The last was a couple years ago when I shot a Roosevelt bull, about 800-900lbs with a mild 45-70 load out of my Marlin 1895. The load was a 350gr Hornady rnsp running about 1850-1900fps. I blew the first shot while he was moving and blew a hole through his mid section, the exit hole was about 1.5" and it turned the liver to jello, the shock of the shot put him down but when I got up on him he gimped into some heavy brush so I took a texas heart shot, the bullet penetrated the widest part of the hip which was about 8" of bone and it looked like someone drilled a hole through it. I found the jacket in the guts but core was in the brisket. The next shot was as he turned quartering away and it went through a rib, destroyed the heart, went through another rib and then embedded itself about 1.5" into the ball of the opposite shoulder. I had to use a chisel to get it out. This was within the capabilities of single shot pistols and not far from some revolvers.

If these had been the bullets of yesteryear I would not have had the results I did. I'll say it again both bullets have their pro's and cons. I was just reading the post on the 357 bullets and Doc Rogers was talking about the shock value of the hollow and soft points and he probably has more game with a handgun than any of us. Hard Cast work but so do jacketed and if the topics on the other posts would stay with "I used this and this happened" or "I like this one because of this" and not criticize eachothers posts it would be different. I will always tell people about my experiences with Hard Cast which to date are negative, jwp apparently had some XTP's not work properly so he's within his rights to say so but when you start attacking someone elses post it's not right.

As for my science I don't believe it is flawed and like I said I've had alot of book and practical application of applied physics so I think I'm right on but if it can be disproved then fine I'm big enough to admit it. As for McPhersons book jwp said it, it's the only book with these studies which means it hasn't been confirmed by follow up studies by independent physicist or ballisticians which in the scientific world makes it incomplete at best. I also look at the books title which is still off topic, we aren't talking about penetration, maybe there is more in this book and maybe I will read it but it dosn't change the basic principles I brought up.

Once again I'm not trying to convert anyone but just to get people to think for themselves. Just because I say or one of the other guys says it or one scientist says something it dosn't make it so. If you look at anything in the scientific world you will find differing views between scientist and the only constants are the basics laws of Physics, two of which I quoted.

I've seen way too much idol worship going on and just because someone has made a name for themselves in one part or another of this business does not mean they are right about everything and to follow them blindly is insanity but yet it happens on a regular basis. I may not yet be as recognized as most in the world of gun building as I'm a relative new comer but that dosn't mean I now or ever will always have the right answer. We are all human which means we are all foulable by nature, the difference is whether someone is open minded enough to learn and big enough to admit they are wrong if it comes to it and I am both.

In my prior occupations I managed people and trained apprentices and there were times I would learn from the apprentices but only because I was willing to listen and be open minded. Just because I was in the top tier in my field didn't mean I knew it all and the only way to get to and stay at the top of anything is to continue to learn and stay open minded to where that knowledge comes from.

I have posted links to physics sites that clearly show that "ENERGY" does not transfer in and inelastic collision, but transforms into other forms of energy. How can you disagree? It is a fact that 'energy' doesn't transfer form body to body.

I guess another way of looking at then is the animal has potential energy that becomes kinetic energy when struck by the bullet which is probably the more accurate way of putting it, which means the larger the mass and higher the velocity the greater the effect on the potential energy stored in the flesh and fluids of the animal. How can you say that an expanding bullet dosn't create a larger shock wave when it expands. It is true that energy just changes forms and that it is constant in any object but changes from potential to kinetic and in this case actually also heat. Like I said earlier run your fist through water or stick it out the window at 65mph and then open it up and see how much the resistance increases. The fact is still no matter how you word it that an expanding bullet has a higher shock value if it works properly which is why all true man stoppers are hollow points. My wording may be off from being rusty but the principle is the same, when a bullet hits an animal there is an internal shock wave and the frequency and amplitude of that shock wave are determined by the bullet that strikes the animal. I also guess a better way of putting one of my earlier statements is that the bullet is expending it's energy inside the animal as it returns to a static or potential state and the more energy expended inside the animal as it passes through the better as long as penetration is there. No different than hitting a sink full of water lightly with your fist or slapping the surface of the water as hard as you can with your palm. Because of the makeup of an animal we are basicly dealing with hydraulics which also brings in cavitation which all involves the displacement of fluid which can be violent enough to destroy organ tissue.