Originally Posted by
zrexpilot
copied and pasted.
try and understand sport.
The other popular contemporary misconception results from the assumption that the kinetic energy of the bullet is "transferred" to the target, thereby somehow killing it through "hydrostatic shock".
I don't know where this term originated, but it is pseudoscience babble. In the first place, these are dynamic - not static - events. Moreover, "hydrostatic shock" is an oxymoron. Shock, in the technical sense, indicates a mechanical wave travelling in excess of the inherent sound speed of the material; it can't be static. This may be a flow related wave like a bow shock on the nose of a bullet in air or it may be a supersonic acoustic wave travelling through a solid after impact. In terms of bullets striking tissue, shock is never encountered. The sound speed of water (which is very close to that of soft tissue) is about 4900 fps. Even varmint bullets do not have an impact velocity this high, let alone a penetration velocity exceeding 4900 fps. Unless the bullet can penetrate faster than the inherent sound speed of the medium through which it is passing, you will not observe a shock wave. Instead, the bullet impact produces an acoustic wave which moves ahead of the penetration. This causes no damage.
Some people use "shock" in the colloquial sense to describe a violent impact, but it is confusing, especially in connection with the term "hydrostatic" and lends undeserved quasi-scientific merit to the slang. It also tends to get confused with the medical expression attending trauma. We are not describing any medical shock. The word shock should never appear in a gun journal.
The rate of energy transfer to the target is vastly more important than the quantity of energy transferred. This is the technical definition of power. Anyone sunbathing on a clear summer day at the beach will receive an irradiance equivalent to over 4600 ft-lbs every minute! Eventually, this bombardment by extremely high velocity particles will result in sunburn, but the body can withstand the energy it receives because it is spread over a large area and arrives at a relatively slow rate (compared with bullets). The power and intensity (power per unit area) is much less than ballistic events.
Bullets which "overpenetrate" do not stop opponents as readily as those that remain in the body. Therefore, if the energy isn't "wasted" on exit, the bullet is more effective. Right?
Not exactly. A bullet of a given construction and impact velocity will create a cavity of predictable dimensions over its path, whether it stops or penetrates completely. Therefore, if the hole created can penetrate all the way through, it causes more damage than if it stops at some point. The critical issue here is what sort of hole are we making, not whether it goes all the way through. "Overpenetration" is a misnomer. The ineffective stopping attributed to overpenetration is actually caused by "undercavitation".
I agree with this 100% but ke is what causes all this to take place in the first place.The premise remains the same.You don't want a bullet just blasting through without doing any damage and we can build some awesome penetrating bullets that do no damage,other than the hole because it has no expansion.
Its not the KE thats killing its the work done by it
This is your quote from another thread,so in essence,the ke caused the work that killed the animal.
I'll concede the bullet doesn't have to stop,never really thought that to be true but my point is penetration is NOT always what we are wanting.I was just trying to make a point.
So if ke is CAUSING the work,then it stands to reason that the one with the higher ke has more POTENTIAL for damage.Of course we need the expansion of the bullet and not just a jacketed bullet that is going to zip through.With that expansion comes less penetration,right? Now it comes down to the compromise between expansion/energy release and penetration.
I personally will take one that stops in the other side over 1 that has NO expansion and just zipped right through.