Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Care to debate on this issue ?


Velocity is what kills fast and clean not energy. Energy is not knockdown power. Theres no such thing as knock down power. Hydrosatic shock is what kills fast, and this derived from velocity. So if you knock a deer on his @$$ it was from velocity not energy.

(copy and pasted)

( Speed (muzzle velocity) is the most important factor; we learn from physics that kinetic energy, i.e., destructive power, increases arithmetically with mass, but geometrically with velocity. Thus you have more to fear from a rifle than from a handgun. Slow, small caliber bullets, and knives, too, for that matter, rarely kill anybody immediately, unless they sever a major artery or pierce the brain, and even then death often takes several minutes. In most such cases, death results from blood loss, brain damage, or (in long drawn-out cases) from infections such as gangrene resulting from contaminants borne into the body by the bullet or knife. An abdominal wound can result in mortal infection from fecal matter seeping out of the intestines.

Large bullets, and small bullets that travel very fast, such as those from an M-16 rifle, can kill almost instantly, mainly by reducing the region of impact literally to hamburger. They also generate something known as "hydrostatic shock." The body is composed largely of water and as such may be viewed as a hydraulic system. Liquid being noncompressible, the shock caused by the high-velocity entry of a large projectile (don't you love this technobabble?) is transmitted throughout the body, causing widespread organ damage and disruption of nervous functions. Even a wound to an arm or leg can be fatal in some instances.

There are numerous variations on the above, most which are undoubtedly familiar to readers of detective stories. Hollow-nosed bullets, for instance, flatten on impact and bulldoze their way through the body, making death almost certain, since the massive damage they cause is virtually irreparable. )


I aggree with this. But theres also more to it than just that. Wound channels are another issue. Bigger bullets leave bigger holes. (wound channel). more to follow

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I'd rather be slapped by a fast skinny woman than be sat on by a big 'ol fat slow moving woman.

Velocity may sting a litle but the energy/knock down of that fat woman will squish your guts out your dang ears!!


It's hard to argue with reason.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Would you rather somebody hit you with their whole body slowly, or punch you in the face?

Entirely different 'reason.'

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. A fast moving bullet generates a larger diameter of "hamburger" because of greater shock(Figure A). But a heaver but slower bullet will have a smaller diameter of "hamburger" (Figure B). Now with that said if both bullets go clean thru then yes I can see a faster bullet doing more damage. If both bullets did no go through then the lighter bullet would stop faster (Figure A) and the heaver bullet with more inertia would go further (Figure B) Then it looks like we are stuck with the old debate of length over girth. Maybe someone will do the math and come up with the a differnce in "hamburger" voulume.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Wait can't rimfire .22 or .17s have similar velocities to a 12ga slug? I wouldn't consider a rimfire for deer, but I do use slugs. I think a shotgun slug is more suitable due to its energy -- not velocity.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

a fast moving bullet may knock them down but it also may not travel far enough into the animal to kill it.


if you where going to hunt large thick skined game animals such as brown bear would you use a 300 win mag with 110 gr. hollow points or with 220 gr. slow moving bullet that will go right through the bear?

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I dunno, but that why I started this debate.
A big hangun like a 45 and a 40 SW have around 375 lbs enegry at 25 yds but have around 1000 fps in velocity. Pretty lame on energy but they will definatley kill you pretty darn fast.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I know this, a heavier bullet does not mean you will have more energy. energy is derived from velocity. You can double the weight of a bullet and it will double your energy, but double the velocity and will quadruple the energy.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

You left out the third side of the debate , bore diamiter or bullet frontal area.
IMO a fast small cal will not kill any better than my slow large cal.
I hunt with a 45/70 rifle and a 44 mag revolver and both kill better than the velocity or energy says they should.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

No, I spoke of this on the opening thread (wound channell) which defantley is part of this debate. Thats why I say energy is not what kills.
Like I said above a colt 45 has only 375lb energy at 25 yds.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

A 44 rem mag has 550 lbs energy at a 100 yds. But some say that you need at least 1000 lbs energy to kill a whiteail. But it seems the 44 would have very little trouble doing this at a 100 yds. See what I'm saying. Energy is not what kills.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

17 has higher velocity and the 30-06 has more energy. Which would you choose? According to this theory the 17 would kill a deer easier.

(From www.remington.com)

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Shushhhhhh your blowing holes in my theory. LOL See what I mean.
so what is it . I really dont think it's energy because a 45 doesnt have any nor a 357 mag nor a 44 mag. That 17 has more energy at 100 yds than the pistols above mentioned. so again I say energy is not what kills

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I don't see it as a debate...it isn't Speed vs Weight..
You must have the appropriate combination of velocity, bullet wieght, bullet construction and point of impact. That is what kills.

2 rifles shooting the same wieght and construction of bullet but at DIFFERENT speeds will have varying terminal results.

You can change the variables all you want but in the end you will find that certain COMBINATIONS are more lethal than others.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I dunno, but that why I started this debate.
A big hangun like a 45 and a 40 SW have around 375 lbs enegry at 25 yds but have around 1000 fps in velocity. Pretty lame on energy but they will definatley kill you pretty darn fast.
of course its gonna kill u gimme a 800fps 177. cal pellet gun and i can kill u pretty fast.... Velocity is not what kills the animal ENERGY is the higher velocity rifles like the 243 u loves so much will hit the deer faster with less power but if u use a larger .30cal the bullit is still gonna hit the deer maybve a little slower but the damage is much greater

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

So a 17 REM that has 906 ft lbs of energy is gonna kill better than a 44 mag that has 740 ft lbs enrgy. Huh ? ya right

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Don,t read like you wanted a debate at all. You have all the answers so ok your the man!

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

they will both kill a deer fast all u need is a good shot to the neck...i shot deer with a 22 that never made a step all u need to be is a good a shot and have the confidence to shoot for the neck

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Your two steping now. LOL

You say energy is what kills. What will stop a hog faster the 44 or the 17, shot in the chest. By your theory the 17 should, cause it has more energy. Now by my theory the 17 should also because it has more velocity. But we both know the 44 will do the job faster.
So weve managed to blow a hole in both our theory's.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I think youve said it best so far.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

lets stick to ur 243 and my 308 what kills more cleanly my 308 does at any range... ur 243 is a peashooter....ENERGY MY FRIEND

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

My thinking is also along those same lines.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Yes I do.. but a 44 mag only has 740 foot lbs?

The 17 has a greater velocity, wouldn't that make you beleive it is going to kill better?

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Browning you could only dream of killing as many deer as I have already forgotten about.
You kill two deer, which I doubt you even did, and now your an expert.
I think I hear your momma calling you. Buwhahahahaha !

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

come talk to me when u shoot a real gun MY slingshot has more energy then ur peashooter of a 243

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

let me hunt on a ranch or a farm like u hunt on that aint huntin u can go any day of the week and see deer that aint huntin no effort or skill

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

now it's effort and skill huh?
Well my little grasshopper, I took two doe this year, from the ground with a bow (no blind) No high fences.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

what ya want a metal my uncle shot a 14 point 255lbs field dressed from the ground no blind or nuttin

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

anyways i find u a funny a fella any old man who will argue wit a 16yo for 3 days must a be a little immature in ur case i think u are......and i think ur old enough to shoot a real gun next time leave ur little pea shooter of a 243 home where it belongs

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I really didnt even know how old you were until now. I just kinda figured you were a young buck. Yes I want my medal, where is it. You got one thing right(my immaturity)
The only thing different between men and boy's is the price of their toy's.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

yea well spend some or ur money and buy a real rifle... ill sell ya mine for $1000... time to grow up and shoot a mans rifle ur still shootin the boys gun

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

zrexpilot, grow the hell up for **** sake.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

only if you make him go to his room.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

ok guys, lets stop the mudflinging and look at the facts. i discovered a pretty good site today when researching some projectile motion stuff for school. i honestly dont have time to state my case but check it out: [link]http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm[/link]

its pretty good. alot of wound stuff that the military uses. should find it helpful in this debate.

slayer

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

ill go to my room when u start shootin a real gun and start bein a man and not a little girl and get rid of ur puddle jumper 243

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

and its energy not velocity that kills

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I agree. A single torso shot from a 9mm handgun is many times survivable unless the heart ,BOTH lungs or a major artery is hit. The same shot from a .45 will not be so kind, and will put an exit wound the size of a fist out the other side carrying with it all that was in its path.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Ive seen some of that slayer. here another good link. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ballistics.htm

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

ok ZREX i have a question to ask u if it is velocity that kills not energy what would u rather take on a big game hunt ur .243 or a 308 or a 30-06 id like to see u shoot a 1000+lb bull with ur 243.....the thing will probly laugh at u...............I REST MY CASE ITS ENERGY NOT VELOCITY

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

ya misewell shoot a buffalo with ur 243 too with its velocity and all