North and South Coming Together

#26
#26
SpaceCoastVol said:
I read an interesting article in a shooting magazine awhile back that was a story/interview with a cop in an urban center. Don't remember which one. But he was talking about arresting a gangbanger that had been shot multiple times in his life and said that the only real reason that this thug was still alive was that ganbangers use cheap ammunition. If they used high velocity stuff they would be more efficient at killing each other. But I guess the price of crack has been down lately so Bulgarian rounds are all they can afford.
Click to expand...

I could easily be wrong here, hopefully one of the guys who knows can say for sure, but I would think slow would be worse. If the round is too fast it just punches through and doesn't grab and do as much damage along the way. a long the lines of a .45 vs a 9mm besides the obvious size difference.

I would think you would have to get REAL cheap to find a slower round that would be less deadly. IMO.
 
#28
#28
zeppelin128 said:
Which fat ass, Trump or Kim?
Click to expand...

maxresdefault.jpg
 
#29
#29
LouderVol said:
I could easily be wrong here, hopefully one of the guys who knows can say for sure, but I would think slow would be worse. If the round is too fast it just punches through and doesn't grab and do as much damage along the way. a long the lines of a .45 vs a 9mm besides the obvious size difference.

I would think you would have to get REAL cheap to find a slower round that would be less deadly. IMO.
Click to expand...
That's a logical argument, except that I think a .223 from an AR15 will do more damage than a .40 cal handgun. I honestly don't know. From what I understand, it is the hydrostatic shock that is imparted to the body that does the damage. If the slug is jacketed or not, and how it hits the body etc etc etc, not just velocity. There are lots of variables. The point of the article was that the cheaper ammunition does not deliver as much energy or create nearly as much damage as a more expensive round.
 
#30
#30
SpaceCoastVol said:
That's a logical argument, except that I think a .223 from an AR15 will do more damage than a .40 cal handgun. I honestly don't know. From what I understand, it is the hydrostatic shock that is imparted to the body that does the damage. If the slug is jacketed or not, and how it hits the body etc etc etc, not just velocity. There are lots of variables. The point of the article was that the cheaper ammunition does not deliver as much energy or create nearly as much damage as a more expensive round.
Click to expand...

A lot of them are also using 9mm, .380, .32, and shooting below the waist. Below the waist is agg assault, above is attempted murder. They know that and they aim accordingly. Guns today basically stand in for fists.
 
#32
#32
DancingOutlaw said:
A lot of them are also using 9mm, .380, .32, and shooting below the waist. Below the waist is agg assault, above is attempted murder. They know that and they aim accordingly. Guns today basically stand in for fists.
Click to expand...

I’d never heard that before, but that would make sense. I’ve noticed that many of the shooting victims in Knoxville have been shot in the legs and had never thought twice about it.
 
#33
#33
LouderVol said:
I could easily be wrong here, hopefully one of the guys who knows can say for sure, but I would think slow would be worse. If the round is too fast it just punches through and doesn't grab and do as much damage along the way. a long the lines of a .45 vs a 9mm besides the obvious size difference.

I would think you would have to get REAL cheap to find a slower round that would be less deadly. IMO.
Click to expand...

(1/2)mv^2

Kinetic energy. It is the integral of force.

The more velocity a spent round has, the more kinetic energy it possesses (assuming a comparison to an identically sized round); the more kinetic energy, the more damage imposed on the target.

To achieve optimal damage, ballistics, materials and design of the round are considerations for intended behavior upon impact. For instance, a hollow point traveling at a greater velocity will inflict more damage than if traveling at a slower velocity. A simple example, but will serve its illustrative purpose, you’ve certainly bounced a rubber ball off the floor/wall. What happens when you throw it with all your might vs. a modest toss? A big difference in each of these after impact, right?

To bring a projectile to rest, it must obviously be stopped and it’s kinetic energy must be conserved. If the law of conservation of energy is maintained, where does this energy go? It goes into the target.

Hope this helped.
 
Last edited:
#34
#34
Squints said:
(1/2)mv^2

Kinetic energy. It is the integral of force.

The more velocity a spent round has, the more kinetic energy it possesses (assuming a comparison to an identically sized round); the more kinetic energy, the more damage imposed on the target.

To achieve the optimal damage, ballistics, materials and design of the round are considerations for intended behavior upon impact. For instance, a hollow point traveling at a greater velocity will inflict more damage than if traveling at a slower velocity. A simple example, but will serve its illustrative purpose, you’ve certainly bounced a rubber ball off the floor/wall. What happens when you throw it with all your might vs. a modest toss? A big difference in each of these after impact, right?

To bring a projectile to rest, it must obviously be stopped and it’s kinetic energy must be conserved. If the law of conservation of energy is maintained, where does this energy go? It goes into the target.

Hope this helped.
Click to expand...

at some point it doesn't matter. kinda goes back to the shear arguments in the 9/11. if the force is so great the target isn't going to put up a resistance and none (a lot less) of that energy actually gets transferred to the target and the round keeps going.

I guess it depends on the round and relative speeds.

I have put a .308 thru two trees right next to each other. first tree entry and exit wounds were about the size of dime. second tree's back size had a whole about the size of my fist. the bullet didn't speed up but did more damage to the second.
 
#35
#35
LouderVol said:
I could easily be wrong here, hopefully one of the guys who knows can say for sure, but I would think slow would be worse. If the round is too fast it just punches through and doesn't grab and do as much damage along the way. a long the lines of a .45 vs a 9mm besides the obvious size difference.

I would think you would have to get REAL cheap to find a slower round that would be less deadly. IMO.
Click to expand...

Kinetic energy. Speed and mass.

Low speed, low mass... (Cheap 9mm) Not as deadly.

High speed, low mass...(High velocity 9mm) More deadly.

Low speed, high mass... (.45 vs 9mm) more deadly

High speed, high mass (30/30) muy deadly.

(PS: I wouldn't want to get shot, period. But that is the basic formula for kinetic energy.)
 
#36
#36
LouderVol said:
at some point it doesn't matter. kinda goes back to the shear arguments in the 9/11. if the force is so great the target isn't going to put up a resistance and none (a lot less) of that energy actually gets transferred to the target and the round keeps going.

I guess it depends on the round and relative speeds.

I have put a .308 thru two trees right next to each other. first tree entry and exit wounds were about the size of dime. second tree's back size had a whole about the size of my fist. the bullet didn't speed up but did more damage to the second.
Click to expand...
DELETE DELETE DELETE before Ras sees your post We don't need to start up THAT again.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top