[quote=Nomercy448;3886199]Since we live on earth, and aren't comparing how much a bullet weighs on earth to what it weighs on the moon, we see that W = M * 1

Incorrect, the gravitational constant is never considered "1", no matter what system you prefer to work in because gravity, being an acceleration is never equal to "1" otherwise we would all float. Therefore, mass and weight should never be used interchangebly. I understand the point you are trying to make though and it is a fair way to approach the discussion but despite what is commonly believed and taught in highschool, gravity is not constant along the surface of the earth, it changes with elevation and coordinates, but the differences are minimal and only slightly affect trajectory along the y-axis. Even still, because of the parabolic change in cartesian cordinates, a change in velocity occurs as well since velocity, being a vector, is comprised of magnitude and direction. Because of this weight should not be used, but mass. All things being equal, and considering you are hunting in the same areas that you are testing, then yes, mass and weight can be used interchangeably sometimes, but not always.

Technically, when I use my analytical balance to "weigh" my bullets, I am actually MASSING them, not "weighing", since a balance measures the object against a reference mass...


You are actually measuring force, but since the acceleration vectors for both are equal and opposite, the acceleration vectors cancel and leave you with simply mass.

But again, no, heavier is NOT better for "busting brush" as has been proven over and over again in the last decade. Higher momentum is better, and having a smaller diameter to reduce the likelihood of impact... Not "heavier"...


Incorrect, "heavier" is better with all things being equal. Smaller profiles assist with penetration, but mass (or weight if you want to look at it that way) and velocity is what creates momentum and energy, and energy transfer is what does the damage.