Pglasgow

Here is a table of a few rifle and muzzleloading projectiles. They are sort in ascending kinetic pulse magnitude. Kinetic Pulse is supposed to bemeasure which is predictive of the volume of the wound channela projectile will make in a media. The inventor of the concept literally shot "wounds" into the moist pliable clay of a seasonly wet dry lake bed near Salt Lake City. Then measured their volume by filling them with water. He found this wound channel volume to be proportional to the product of the kinetic energy and momentum of the projectile. He equates kinetic pulse (k.p.) with killing power.

Muzzle Values

RIFLE BULLET WT. MV ME TKO KIN. PULSE

22 WMR 40 2000 355 3 126
.243 70 3483 1885 8 2040
.50 PRB 175 19001402 24 2070
.54 PRB225 1800 1618 29 2910
25-06 1202900227112 3534
30-06 150 29902977 19 5928
7RemMag 150 2998 2993 18 5976
.50 GP Con 4601450 2147 48 6358
50/140 Sharps 435 1950 4247 72 19385
458 Win Mag400 2310 473860 19441


I really do think that kinetic pulse does a better job relating the killing power of the high power rifles and muzzleloadingload alike. These are of course Muzzle values and, in terms of kp at 100 yards, neither of the PRBs is better than the 243 (in k.p.).

Tell me what you think? Does kp do a better job than kinetic energy or Taylor index?

Happy Hunting, Phil

cayugad

that does look more what I would have thought for "killing power." Very interesting information ... thanks

sabotloader

Pglasgow

Now this is extremly interesting to me. It is really hard to argue a physically measured test.

Shooting aprojectile into a common medium at a common distance filling the channel and measuring the fill - this is how I understand it. Not much roomfor speculation.

I think I understand the principle momentum + energy ='s a channel. Volume of the channel then can be measured - makes sense

This does make a lot more sense to me, but then again that worries me a bit if I understand it or do I understand it because the list of projectiles in the order arranged looks about how would have arranded them off the top of my head.

I must admit I think this is more valid - probably eveb more valid than normal ballistics

Months back a gentleman, his name escapes me at the moment and he even has a web site showing the test results,conducted these same type tests into a 5 gal bucket of soft soil then through a 2x6 plank measuring penetration. It was a very interesting test.

Pglasgow very good research to find this test.

Thanks
again my 2 bits

Pglasgow

Pglasgow

Now this is extremly interesting to me. It is really hard to argue a physically measured test.

Shooting aprojectile into a common medium at a common distance filling the channel and measuring the fill - this is how I understand it. Not much roomfor speculation.


[blockquote]quote:

He found this wound channel volume to be proportional to the product of the kinetic energy and momentum of the projectile.[/blockquote]


I think I understand the principle momentum + energy ='s a channel. Volume of the channel then can be measured - makes sense

Close but more accurately, momentum x energy ='s a channel volume.


This does make a lot more sense to me, but then again that worries me a bit if I understand it or do I understand it because the list of projectiles in the order arranged looks about how would have arranded them off the top of my head.

Well, I started working on them in order by cartridge. I pretty much knew how they would turn out, except, the 7mm Mag was pretty much equivalent to the 30-06, which surprised me. Also, I wasn't for sure where the roundballs would fall in. Try this sabotloader. Just pick a cartridge or your favored ML load and try to guess where it will come in. I think you'll find that your hunch is corroborated by thekinetic pulse value. go to the link below for the online calculator.
http://www.xmission.com/~fractil/figure.cgi?massa=245&velocitya=1800&massb= &velocityb=

And go to this link for the complete description of the theory http://www.xmission.com/~fractil/math/kp.html

Have fun, Phil

sabotloader

Pglasgow


Not me, I have spent a lot of time in high powered ballistics comparing 270 - 06 - 7mm - 300 Win mag - that is why I own several poorman's magnums - 270's and real mags the 300 winnie. They are collecting dust now but what can I say I really like ML's. You might really be surprised if you plugged in a 270 with 140 grain bullet or a 300 Wm with 200 grain bullet @ 2900fps.

I will venture over to the sites - thanks for the info...

Pglasgow

Oh I noticed a typo in the table. I wrote the weight of the 50/140 sharps as 435. It is instead 515 grains. The muzzle velocity for the 435 grain bullet was about 2100 fps. All the data for the 50/140 is for the 515 grain bullet. You may wish to calculate the 435 grain bullet and see if it moves the placement of the 50/140 in the table. I don't think it will.

Happy Hunting, Phil

txhunter58

In theory, this does seem to be an improvement and possibly a way to compare all calibers from small, fast moving one to big, slow moving ones.

Knock down, or killing power measured this way seems to incorporate not only wound channel, but penetration as well, and both of those seem to be needed to kill quickly.

lemoyne

Very interesting consept,Good post.
well,due to the fact that there is a wide range of weights and types of bullets and powder loads if the one you happened to be using is not there its hard to apply.The basic idea is very good, I hope some bullet company with a lot of confidance in their own product sees fit to develope it.
I wonder ifsome standardswere set[maybe byone of the moderators]and could find a test medium available to all of us to compare our favorite loads.
Comparing loads that blow up to loads that go through with out opening up on a deer and how the same load worked on elk or boar,would be interesting.
Water could be compared by volume or weight.
If you wouldhelp us out here with your thoughts om the matter. Lee

Pglasgow

Lee said:

I wonder ifsome standardswere set[maybe byone of the moderators]and could find a test medium available to all of us to compare our favorite loads.

I do thinkclay is low cost enough and available to most every one, however, I don't see how one can beat the lake bed for the ease of testing. I honestly feel that the work done so far can be trusted and that the formula or web-calculator can just be used. Even so, I am encouraged by your interest and have consider, maybe, doing some testing also. Even go so far as pressing some baby backs in the clay and covering with fresh deer pelt. I have a chrono so I could work out loads which have muzzle velocities which are consistentwith range velocities(say 50,75,100 yds, etc.)

Comparing loads that blow up to loads that go through with out opening up on a deer and how the same load worked on elk or boar,would be interesting.


The author of the kinetic pulse site does discuss penetration and explosiveness of projectiles. Here is what he says and it makes good sense to me. He says the ratio of Energy to Momentum gives one an indication of how explosive a round is. The higher the number, the greater the expansion.

So the value of this ratio for the 243 is 1885/1.083 = 1740

For my "elephant" gun (could resist unclocked) 2147/2.962 = 724

The 243 is potentially "explosive" but my 460 great plains conical is going to "burrow deep" with less expansion

If you wouldhelp us out here with your thoughts om the matter. Lee

I think we can use the calculator to gain a relative understanding, if not a quantitative understanding, of how are load will perform on game.

Here is what I think of the Taylor index:

I think the Taylor index gives undue weight to the diameter of the bullet. I think so because it also gives (mathetical) weight to the mass of the projectile. Obviously some indication of the diameter is already in the mass number.For example,there is no 460 grain bullet for22 caliber. We don't, after all, shoot wire, we shoot bullets. His measure is predjudiced byhis thoughts on what make a weaponknock down animals. That said. The rounds he favored not onlyscore well on Taylor KO, they also score extremely well in kineticpulse.

Here is what I think of kinetic energy.

Evaluating a projectile only on its energy is biased towards high powered rifles where increased energy is necessary to "widen" the wound channel of a small diameter projectile. This is discussed at the kinetic pulse site. A25-06 isn't better than my 460 GP load at killing elk or buffalo even though its energyis greater.

Here is what I think of Kinetic Pulse.

Kinetic pulse is an attempt to relate mathematically the ability of a projectile to create a wound cavity. There is further premise that the size (volume)of the wound (depth x diam.) is indicative of its ability to wound and kill an animal. I do find this premise reasonable and the relationship agreeable in that it was derived a-posteri (after experience) by testing. The advantage of Kinetic Pulse, as I see it, is that it gives more reasonable weight to momentum, energy, and diameter. The diameter is given considerableweight in the momentum. For example, one could mathematically relate mass as:

Mass= (density x dia. x dia. x length x pi )/4 (this for cylindrical bullet)

In this regard, Kinetic pulse givesmathematical weight to bore size and projectile mass which kinetic energygives little. Also Kinetic Pulse doesn't ignore kinetic energy, giving it equal weight to momentum. In my way of thinking, it is the balance one needs to correct the imbalances of judging a projectile by either taylor ko or kinetic energy solely.

Again, as with all my posts, take from them what ever you choose. I hope all enjoy playing with the calculators and that fun also help you in deciding onwhat yourloads will be and how you will use those loads ethically in the field.

Happy Hunting, Phil

Underclocked

That one is far more meaningful than TKO, IMHO. The swung 2x4 no longer applies.