Interesting notion from another thread, which bears some examination

[44flattop]

What you seem to have a difficult time grasping is that the precise science of physics no longer applies once that bullet strikes flesh & bone. Things cease being simple, predictable, or cut & dried. The simple fact that you believe diameter and mass have no bearing on penetration shows to anyone with just a precursor knowledge of terminal ballistics that you do not know what you're talking about, with regards to terminal ballistics. You are trying to simplify something that is far from it.

[zombietactics]

... What you seem to have a difficult time grasping is that the precise science of physics no longer applies once that bullet strikes flesh & bone....

What you seem to have trouble grasping is that you just contradicted yourself. Physics encompasses the whole of physical reality ... including the behavior of projectiles on flesh and bone. The physics of flesh and bone are well known, and not so mysterious as you suggest. I have no idea what that concept is so threatening.

... The simple fact that you believe diameter and mass have no bearing on penetration shows to anyone with just a precursor knowledge of terminal ballistics that you do not know what you're talking about, with regards to terminal ballistics.

I have never once stated that diameter and mass "have no bearing on penetration", so I have no idea where you get that from. I have a pretty good idea exactly how diameter and mass count, and it's not anything like "has no bearing".

[44flattop]

Physics encompasses the whole of physical reality ... including the behavior of projectiles on flesh and bone. The physics of flesh and bone are pretty well known, and not so mysterious as you suggest.

Is that why we're having this argument? Is that why the most credible evidence is gained through physically testing bullets and loads on test medium, rather than what is calculated with formulas? Because it's so simply explained by physics?

If you want to be credible as an "expert" on this subject, which appears to be the case, what are your qualifications? How old are you? What is your education? How long have you been doing what you're doing? What is your experience in killing critters? Explain to us exactly how your occupation makes your opinion more credible or valid than any other?

Then please explain you think you're the first one to have this all figured out.

[zombietactics]

... Is that why we're having this argument? Is that why the most credible evidence is gained through physically testing bullets and loads on test medium, rather than what is calculated with formulas? Because it's so simply explained by physics? ...

I think you are confused as to how that works. We do physical testing as confirmation that everything is lining up. Almost all of the time the results are precisely what is predicted by the math, because the math is an accurate physical model of what happens in the real world. If things don't jibe, generally somebody made a mistake in either math or manufacturing. That happens. What doesn't happen is contradictions between the laws of physics and reality.

I've done this kind of work at Boeing & Space Systems/Loral. If the physics (which are far more complicated in those cases) didn't accurately reflect the real world you'd have planes and satellites literally dropping out of the sky for no known reason, and we'd have pilots designing aircraft instead of engineers.

If I tell you that I have 2 apples and you give me 3 more ... you don't have to observe the apples physically in my hands to know that I would then have 5, right? It not like some special "real world apple magic" adds or subtracts apples in a way that we don't understand. What would you think if someone told you they've personally seen a 6th apple magically appear "in the real world"?

Then please explain you think you're the first one to have this all figured out.

I am absolutely certain that I am not the first, second or even 100-thousandth to "figure this out". Chalk that up as another claim I've never made, that I am somehow supposed to defend.

This is OLD news. It's no secret or mystery, and (most of it, anyway) hasn't been for hundreds of years. Newton had most of it figured out by the late 1600s. Rather the case is that people do like to stubbornly cling to comfortable ideas, and the firearms world is especially prone in this regard.

I've been rooms full of supposedly educated people asking what will happen if I drop a 10lb bowling ball and 1oz marble at the same time. Which hits the floor first? .... the answers are as astounding as the reasons given. Most people really don't get it ... which is no crime, but it is telling.

[WESHOOT2]

Hence my disapproval of the use of "energy" when discussing ammunition effectiveness

Lethality is what we discuss for hunting bullets.
Effectiveness is what we discuss for bullets intended to make humans cease and desist their immediate behavior as rapidly as possible.
There is a huge difference.

So while we continue to theorize over the mathematical reasons why certain bullets of certain dimension at certain velocities may perform better or worse, we can turn to actual results to decipher what is actually working the way we want.

Autopsy results indicate lethality.

[44flattop]

Well, you didn't answer my questions. That's a red flag.

We do physical testing as confirmation that everything is lining up.

Testing on what, exactly? And how does it apply to terminal ballistics.

Yes, you are claiming to be the first to figure this out. REAL ballisticians, hunters and shooters have been trying to figure out how to quantify the performance of bullets on game for years. There is a reason why it's not "simple physics", because it's not simple. Like I've said multiple times, you are over-simplifying something that is far from simple.

I've done this kind of work at Boeing & Space Systems/Loral.

Name-dropping anything that is not related to ballistics is not going to help you. This reminds me of conversations with engineers on most any subject. Even if the subject is completely unrelated to their area of study or field of expertise, they 'think' they have it all figured out. Even when it's obvious to all those involved, they haven't the slightest clue. I'm sorry but I don't think your knowledge/experience is applicable to terminal ballistics. At least not in the way you think it does.

Rather the case is that people do like to stubbornly cling to comfortable ideas, and the firearms world is especially prone in this regard.

You would do well not to assume you're speaking to narrow-minded, stubborn morons. Believe me, if there was a way to mathematically predict the effectiveness of any bullet at any velocity on any target, the shooting industry would embrace it. Because energy is a joke. Perhaps it is YOU who is clinging to something that is comfortable and outdated???

[WESHOOT2]

Perhaps it is YOU who is clinging to something that is comfortable and outdated

That would be my wife

[zombietactics]

Well, you didn't answer my questions. That's a red flag.

A red flag for me is that you've stooped to name-calling, and have payed so little attention to what I have actually written, that you have twice called upon me to defend statements I haven't made.

Declare whatever "victory" you think you are due. I have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone, where discussion is demonstrably impossible.

[44 AMP]

I think this one is done.
closed.