Al,
Yep, "School of thought"....sorry, my bad. I guess it was a cross between that and "Rule of Thumb"......."Rule of Thought"....nice...
I'm so sorry if I'm being dense because I'm not absorbing some concept you're attempting to explain, but it really seems to me with this statement that you're contradicting yourself, or at least you're agreeing with me. And, no, the velocities are not comparable. The .41 Mag. in my world outdoes the .357 Mag. in any reasonable comparison, so don't bring up sub-158 gr. bullets. The 140 gr., 125 gr. and 110 gr. bullets don't fit into this discussion within the context of hunting dangerous animals.
Well, I'll try and explain "what I mean" as best as possible using your format
No I wasn't contradicting myself.
What I was stating is not a "concept" and was taught as a fundamental ballistics principal when I started a long time ago. It was also conveyed by Technicians from Federal Ammunition who were present at our Sniper courses during their seminars as well.
I conveyed these same principals in the classes I instructed many, many times.
I used the "finger vs. fist" analogy, not figuring that finger joints would be an issue, but the exact anaolgy that was used in the classes I did attend back then was (from my notes);
"If two cylinders of equal weight, one of longer smaller diameter, and one shorter, but of larger diameter, were suspended over a soft bed of test medium, such as wet sand, and dropped from the same height, and attaining the same velocity on impact, the longer, smaller diameter cylinder, having lesser frontal area, would penetrate the medium far deeper due to it's smaller frontal diameter".
I don't know, but this seems fairly straightforward to me, but that's just me. And, yes, I do realize that the .357 and .41 Mag's don't posses the same energies.
This example was to clarify my point regarding penetration regarding diameter itself. If energy was equal, the thinner diameter "cylinder" would penetrate farther. With lesser velocity on the part of the thinner cylinder, penetration might very well be equal in this instance.
In the example given, both cylinders have transmitted their respective energies, but based on their physical makeup, their performances are much different. The smaller diameter cylinder transmits it's energy over a longer distance, due to it's shape, whereas the cylinder of larger diameter does so in a much shorter distance also based on it's design. Naturally, as the difference in size becomes less between the two, a middle ground is reached I guess.
You fall into the same trap that almost everyone else falls into when discussing these matters: you get wrapped up in kinetic energy. You know I'm "old school," so I don't give a lot of weight or credence to this type of energy measurement. I prefer to think about "momentum."
No "trap" Al,
Momentum refers to the "quantity of motion" that an object has. Kinetic energy is the "energy of that motion". An object which has motion - whether it be vertical or horizontal motion - has kinetic energy.
You can "prefer momentum", but they're both intertwined, and both have an effect. That energy is transmitted on impact with an object, not "all at once", but a good portion of it initially, tapering off until the end of it's travel.
And no, I don't believe that what kinetic energy that is transmitted to the object being hit, will "knock it, or them, off their feet". More of a "reaction to the energy" when being struck. A lot like jumping when being stuck in the a$$ by a hat pin.
The impact energy itself has more of an affect on the tissues, and it's limited ability to expand, or it's elasticity.
On the other hand, being an ex-officer, I'm sure you've been told that a deer slug with it's soft lead makeup, hitting a bulletrproof vest, would, more often than not, fail to penetrate. But, the kinetic energy, or shock, absorbed itself would kill the wearer, more than likely gelling the vital organs.
Depending on the shape of the object in flight, more or less energy can be transmitted to the object struck by it on impact.
Regarding penetration in any similar example, both projectiles (bullets) will penetrate, yes, but as in the cylinder example, the projectile with the narrower frontal diameter, all else being equal (meaning speed, mass or weight, and bullet construction) will penetrate deeper and transmit it's energy over a longer distance.
This hopefully will answer this next item, at least partially.
I still can't see why you believe the smaller diameter bullet would give as-deep penetration when it can't given its lack of mass unless you propel the smaller-diameter bullet at much, much higher velocities.
What I was trying to explain (based on this principal) was that by using a heavier bullet in the .357 Magnum, and pushing it to maximum velocities, penetration would be better...not the "same" as a .41 Magnum, as in my comment from a previous post;
Although the .357 has lesser energy than the .41 Mag, using the proper jacketed bullet, and with the smaller diameter it has, will penetrate far more than you think.
The "you think" part, should've been stated as "more than you'd think", not meaning "you" as an individual.
Admittedly, I said "lesser energy than the .41 Mag" and, I also referred to "the proper jacketed bullet", meaning a match type jacketed, or hard cast heavier constructed round. Restricting the expansion of any round will allow it to penetrate farther until it's energy is exhausted. That's regarding penetration alone.
On another note regarding kinetic energy & flesh, tissue needs to be damaged, causing serious trauma and blood loss to effect a quick end. Penetration "alone" cannot reliably accomplish this.
I wasn't comparing the .357 Magnum to the .41 Mag, as the energies are much different. What I was stating was that the .357 can be tailored to "penetrate better" with the right loads or bullets, since penetration was an issue. In some cases, pretty close to the .41 Mag.
Somewhat unrelated, I found some data that was interesting never the less....
http://www.handguninfo.com/Archive/www. ... .stops.htm
Evan Marshall is a pretty well known authority, and I've read a lot of his work over the years. Although these bullets tested were of varying designs and weights, I found their "penetration qualities" to be pretty amazing. The medium used was consistent, so, although I wouldn't use a 125gr bullet to shoot a bear with, one of heavier weight and construction would fair much better, I'm sure.
I paid very little attention to the "one shot stops" part of the testing and mainly to the penetration issue. Although a heavier bullet will produce less velocity, and in turn, less "listed" energy, it's "momentum" will carry it further.
The two schools of thought in ballisitics are the "light & fast", and "slow & heavy". Both have their "pro's & con's". Light & fast will naturally get you there faster, with flatter trajectory, and usually more explosive expansion. Within closer ranges, those type of loads can, and usually do produce energies that are "at, or above" the energies of the lower heavier loads. But, based on their lighter bullet weight to gain those speeds, their penetration qualities are quite poor as the bullets usually come apart long before they reach anything vital on tough targets.
Simplifying it somewhat, based on their weights, momentum can be generated by a "mass x velocity" equasion, whereas when velocity lessens over it's flight, mass takes precedence, carrying it's energy further. Thus, resulting in higher energies past a given point.
About Bulls vs. Bears (sounds like a Ditka thing).....
Don't know Al, it's been awhile since I butchered a bull, and several years since I skinned and butchered a bear with my taxidermist buddy, but the skin of each animal being as different as it is, it would appear to me (from hands on experiences) that the distances that need to be travelled to get to the vitals might be about like the "light & fast" vs. the "slow & heavy" analogy........the bear having a thick hide & grissle plate with a shorter distance to the vitals once through it......or the "thin skinned bovine" as you stated, with the longer run to the vital area.....
I just remember the bull as having a lot more guts than the bear......LOL
Gotta take a nap after this novel........
Take care,
Bob
