Lee said:
I wonder ifsome standardswere set[maybe byone of the moderators]and could find a test medium available to all of us to compare our favorite loads.
I do thinkclay is low cost enough and available to most every one, however, I don't see how one can beat the lake bed for the ease of testing. I honestly feel that the work done so far can be trusted and that the formula or web-calculator can just be used. Even so, I am encouraged by your interest and have consider, maybe, doing some testing also. Even go so far as pressing some baby backs in the clay and covering with fresh deer pelt. I have a chrono so I could work out loads which have muzzle velocities which are consistentwith range velocities(say 50,75,100 yds, etc.)
Comparing loads that blow up to loads that go through with out opening up on a deer and how the same load worked on elk or boar,would be interesting.
The author of the kinetic pulse site does discuss penetration and explosiveness of projectiles. Here is what he says and it makes good sense to me. He says the ratio of Energy to Momentum gives one an indication of how explosive a round is. The higher the number, the greater the expansion.
So the value of this ratio for the 243 is 1885/1.083 = 1740
For my "elephant" gun (could resist unclocked
) 2147/2.962 = 724
The 243 is potentially "explosive" but my 460 great plains conical is going to "burrow deep" with less expansion
If you wouldhelp us out here with your thoughts om the matter. Lee
I think we can use the calculator to gain a relative understanding, if not a quantitative understanding, of how are load will perform on game.
Here is what I think of the Taylor index:
I think the Taylor index gives undue weight to the diameter of the bullet. I think so because it also gives (mathetical) weight to the mass of the projectile. Obviously some indication of the diameter is already in the mass number.For example,there is no 460 grain bullet for22 caliber. We don't, after all, shoot wire, we shoot bullets. His measure is predjudiced byhis thoughts on what make a weaponknock down animals. That said. The rounds he favored not onlyscore well on Taylor KO, they also score extremely well in kineticpulse.
Here is what I think of kinetic energy.
Evaluating a projectile only on its energy is biased towards high powered rifles where increased energy is necessary to "widen" the wound channel of a small diameter projectile. This is discussed at the kinetic pulse site. A25-06 isn't better than my 460 GP load at killing elk or buffalo even though its energyis greater.
Here is what I think of Kinetic Pulse.
Kinetic pulse is an attempt to relate mathematically the ability of a projectile to create a wound cavity. There is further premise that the size (volume)of the wound (depth x diam.) is indicative of its ability to wound and kill an animal. I do find this premise reasonable and the relationship agreeable in that it was derived a-posteri (after experience) by testing. The advantage of Kinetic Pulse, as I see it, is that it gives more reasonable weight to momentum, energy, and diameter. The diameter is given considerableweight in the momentum. For example, one could mathematically relate mass as:
Mass= (density x dia. x dia. x length x pi )/4 (this for cylindrical bullet)
In this regard, Kinetic pulse givesmathematical weight to bore size and projectile mass which kinetic energygives little. Also Kinetic Pulse doesn't ignore kinetic energy, giving it equal weight to momentum. In my way of thinking, it is the balance one needs to correct the imbalances of judging a projectile by either taylor ko or kinetic energy solely.
Again, as with all my posts, take from them what ever you choose. I hope all enjoy playing with the calculators and that fun also help you in deciding onwhat yourloads will be and how you will use those loads ethically in the field.
Happy Hunting, Phil