Guns Like firearms themselves, there's a wide variety of opinions on what's the best gun.

Bullistics

Old 11-23-2006, 10:45 AM
  #1  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
zrexpilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,695
Default Bullistics

Kinetic energy is one of the biggest myths in the bull-istics table.
Why do people still believe in this farse. Get with the '80's errrr I mean the millenium. The energy theory is as old as dirt. Terminal ballistics is a science not a theory. We know how bullets kill and it has nothing to do with kinetic energy, absolutely ZERO !
A bullet kills just like a knife or arrow, nothing magical about it, it doesnt generate electricity that shocks an animal, it just puts a hole in it, nothing more. I post info like this at least once a year, its that time of year.

Heres just one read..................copied and pasted.

A Temporary Digression While I Ride One Of My Hobby Horses:
or,
A Short Disquisition On The Bullet's Killing Mechanism


[hr]



Part I: "Energy Dumping" Is A Myth
Let me state right here and now that there are two terms you're going to hear that have no meaning. If you haven't heard them yet, you will, if you spend any time at all on a shooting range or hanging around the wiseacres in gun shops. Both refer to popular myths among shooters about how a bullet kills, and are based on thorough misunderstanding of ballisitics and biology.
"Hydrostatic shock" is the idea that a bullet kills by setting up a "shock wave" in the incompressible water of which an animal's body is largely composed. "Energy dumping" is the concept that if a bullet stops within an animal, it will kill more effectively than one that goes through and exits, since it "releases its entire amount of energy within the body."

[align=center]As intuitively appealing as these notions are, the fact is that a bullet kills the same way any other agent of penetrating trauma does. A bullet may act faster than a knife or an arrow, but like them it kills either: 1) by causing a rapid loss of blood pressure, depriving the central nervous system of oxygen; or 2) by physically interfering with nerve pathways; or 3) both. [/align][align=center]The False Reasoning Behind The "Energy Dumping" Fallacy [/align]The bullet does indeed have a good deal of kinetic energy, and the faster it's moving the more it has, of course. In the USA bullet energy levels are rated in "foot-pounds", a relatively obscure unit implying the amount of energy needed to move one pound of weight one foot.
European countries use the much more sensible metric system, and in this system the energy unit is the "joule". While both these units refer to energy of movement, the joule has the advantage that it can easily be converted to units used to measure heat. One calorie is equivalent to 4.1 joules, the calorie being a unit of heat. Specifically, one calorie is the amount of heat needed to raise one gram of water one degree Celsius. (The comparable unit in the US system is the BTU, but converting foot-pounds to BTU's is not so straightforward as converting joules to calories.)
A bullet fired from a reasonably powerful handgun, say a hot 9mm Parabellum load, has an energy level of perhaps 500 joules at the muzzle.
So why do I care about converting muzzle energy figures into heat? Because if a bullet is stopped in its target, that's exactly what happens: its residual kinetic energy is, in fact released (or, as the wiseacres have it, "dumped") into the animal's body; but it's released as heat, in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. (This is the reason why your car's brakes heat up when you stop: that energy can't be destroyed, it can only be converted to another form, and the "defaut" is to convert it to heat.)
The amount of heat liberated by stopping a bullet is surprisingly small: 500 joules works out to be about 106 calories. That would be enough to raise 106 grams (about 0.25 pounds) of water one degree Celsius (about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). That's not all that much, especially when compared to the size of animal it has to be "dumped" into.
A man is a pretty large animal (about the size of a deer) and 500 joules (or 106 calories) of energy diffused through the body of a 150-pound (68,100 gram) human would not suffice to raise his body temperature even one-one-hundreth of a degree Fahrenheit. And that is a maximum amount, which assumes the bullet is stopped and that the shot was fired at point-blank range. To have a noticeable effect on tissue temperature you would have to "dump" a great deal more energy than 500 or so joules: the amount of heat liberated even by the biggest and baddest bullet available is very far below the capacity of the body's water to absorb it. It should be obvious, then, that the theory of "energy dumping" is based on an exaggerated idea of how much energy a bullet actually has, and is meaningless as a part of the killing mechanism.
Believers in the "energy dumping" theory never seem to have an adequate explanation for the fact that there are many, many gunshot victims are still walking around with bullets that "dumped" all their energy, and are still inside the victims. Many people with such retained bullets received them at close range from large-caliber guns, and were therefore the unlucky recipients of lots of "dumped" energy, but they are still alive. The answer, however, is really very simple: they are still alive because they were lucky enough not to have received a hit in a vital area.

[hr][align=center]Part II: "Hydrostatic Shock" Is An Even Bigger Myth [/align]Proponents of the "hydrostatic shock" theory usually argue that animals are composed largely of water, and therefore a bullet causes a "shock wave" to be set up in them, which causes displacement of organs, and rupture of tissues. Their belief in this concept is bolstered by the spectacular splashes that expanding bullets make when fired into plastic milk jugs filled with water: they imagine that something of the same thing happens in an animal body. They are wrong.
First, animals aren't jugs of water, and don't resemble jugs of water in the least. Animals don't have uniform internal density, and the response of muscle to a bullet is very different than that of, say, the bones or the lungs. At the microscopic level, animals are actually very compartmentalized, and there is almost no "free" water (or any other liquid) to constitute a homogeneous medium in which a "shock wave" can be propagated for more than few millimeters. About the only places where large quantities of fluids are found sloshing around are in the spleen and liver, both of which contain sizeable volumes of "loose" blood.
Second, it has been demonstrated quite conclusively that most body tissues are very tolerant of momentary deformation and quite resilient. Unless a bullet physically cuts a blood vessel or nerve, little more than localized damage is done by its passage.
It is true that in passing through, a bullet does form a so-called "temporary wound cavity" of considerable size, which lasts for milliseconds. Inside this volume a "shock wave" does form, and it even displaces some organs. But the effect of the temporary wound cavity is small, and most tissues and organs resist this very brief deformation. There is certainly no possibility--as you will frequently be told by ignorant gunshop clerks--that you can "...hit a man in the arm and the shock will travel through the blood to his brain and kill him..." Blood is carried in blood vessels, and those vessels are tough. Anyone who has dissected a freshly-dead animal will testify to the strength of an artery: it takes a good deal of force to rupture one, and physical displacement for a few milliseconds isn't enough. It's perfectly possible to displace an artery by several inches permanently with no loss of function. To do significant damage the artery has actually to be hit by the bullet, preferably by the sharp edges of the expanded outer jacket, which will cut it.
Furthermore, there is no way the "shock wave" could "travel through the blood" because the design of the system is such that a) it permits only one-way flow; and 2) it dampens pressure oscillations of considerable magnitude. Arteries that carry blood to the body are very muscular structures and designed to resist considerable heads of pressure lest they burst. And as they get smaller and smaller, ramifying to all the organs, the resistance to flow increases greatly. Even if you were to set up a significant "shock wave" locally, it wouldn't get very far in the system before the increasing resistance to its passage would dampen it out completely.
The True Believers in the "hydrostatic shock" myth often point to the messy soup found inside the chest of deer hit in the lungs as "proof" they are right. But they are really pointing to a major hole in their argument. There isn't any "free" blood in the chest of any mammal: like blood elsewhere, it's in blood vessels.
The lungs are a sort of enormous capillary bed, with millions of small blood vessels lying between the gas-exchange surfaces. Most of the volume of the chest is air. The vast quantities of blood found in the chest cavity of a lung-shot animal weren't there when the shot was fired. The free blood found in the chest after a shooting got there because the bullet damaged the blood vessels running through the area.
An expanding bullet does a fearful amount of damage to the extremely delicate tissue of the lungs, but this region also includes major blood vessels (the aorta and pulmonary artery, to name two) which are usually damaged as well. These pour enormous quantities of blood into the thoracic cavity when they're ruptured. Contraction of the body musculature and the pumping of the heart (if it too isn't hit) will assure this. The blood in the chest cavity is the result of the damage, not the cause of it, and the "shock wave" isn't propagated through it at all.

[hr]
zrexpilot is offline  
Old 11-23-2006, 12:31 PM
  #2  
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ponce de Leon Florida USA
Posts: 10,079
Default RE: Bullistics

Although I read the entire post (though I fell asleep a time or two) I don't think I agree 100%. Simple question. I have shot a number of deer, broadside, in the pocket behind the shoulder, 100% lung and the deer folded like a head shot duck. Your post implies that the deer bled to death instantly, no shock value. How do you explain this?
timbercruiser is offline  
Old 11-23-2006, 01:53 PM
  #3  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,288
Default RE: Bullistics

I dont agree with most of it then again I couldnt........................................... ...........................................
.................................................. .............................................
.................................................. .............................................

sorry feel asleep on the .... key i couldnte make it throught ost of it.
cowboy4513 is offline  
Old 11-23-2006, 02:04 PM
  #4  
Fork Horn
 
BooneAndCrockett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location:
Posts: 369
Default RE: Bullistics

Ballistics are the only thing i use when gun hunting!
BooneAndCrockett is offline  
Old 11-23-2006, 04:34 PM
  #5  
Giant Nontypical
 
JagMagMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Neches, Texas
Posts: 5,514
Default RE: Bullistics

Cut and paste, snip and clip! Bullets kill in a different manner than blades do!
Yes, loss of O2 to the brain/loss of blood is the killing factor, that is where the similarity ends! Take away the "cut" of a blade and what do you have? NOTHING!
Look at a FMJ wound. Little hole, very little energy transfer! Now, take a wound from a well mushroomed hunting bullet, wether it stayed in, or passed comepletly through. What do you have? Scrambled organs, thats what!
To say that there is no difference in bullets and blades is like saying there is no difference than a heart attack and a car crash!
Yeah, they are both fatal, so I guess there is no difference!
JagMagMan is offline  
Old 11-23-2006, 08:03 PM
  #6  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 1,673
Default RE: Bullistics

I don't agree with any of it.
Chantecler111 is offline  
Old 11-23-2006, 08:20 PM
  #7  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: MISSOURI
Posts: 1,157
Default RE: Bullistics

I just feel dumb !!!!!!, I dont understand any of the theories of static shock or kientic energy. I am sure no expert but isnt it good enough to just take our experence in the field and use it to determine what happens when a bullet goes though a deer/elk/moose ect. All thou DR.Danthehunter does have ring to it!!
DANTHEHUNTER is offline  
Old 11-27-2006, 03:30 PM
  #8  
 
Trophy Taker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location:
Posts: 37
Default RE: Bullistics

I have to say that i agree with timbercruiser i shot a buck last friday with a slug and my dad took a buck with his muzzle loader we were about 90 yards away and it looked like someone hit his buckwith a truck. It seemed like he just flew to the ground. My buck just took one step and tipped over. If they measure kinetic energy for bows why shouldn't it be the same for guns.

Trophy Taker
Trophy Taker is offline  
Old 11-27-2006, 04:05 PM
  #9  
Nontypical Buck
 
Sniper151's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cornwall, Pa.
Posts: 1,720
Default RE: Bullistics

What for brain surgeon wrote that article. Another freekin Einstein.
Sniper151 is offline  
Old 11-27-2006, 04:08 PM
  #10  
 
kshafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 257
Default RE: Bullistics

wow i feel really dumb but i have a question. is "knockdown power" that is alwaysdebated about hunting bullets a slugs the same as KE? just one of my random thoughts
kshafer is offline  

Quick Reply: Bullistics


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.