16ga.com ~ View topic - And the results are in !!!!! DR16 load testing results.

I'd agree here. Rabbits have a much more fragile nervous system than the average game bird. A single #4 or #5 pellet through the vitals will drop a rabbit stone dead. The average pheasant would not even pause flapping its wings unless you were lucky enough to brain it. Even then, it could still run off, brain or no brain. I've seen them do it with half their heads shot away.

Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 728

Shooting Sioux,

I know that force equals mass times acceleration (F= MA) and you would be correct if acceleration were a factor in this comparison because acceleration is expressed in feet per second squared. However, in this comparison the energy is delivered essentially simultaneously by both loads so the correct equation is force equals mass times velocity (F=MV). Velocity is expressed in feet per second, not feet per second squared, therefore velocity is a linear, not exponential, variable.

The weight of the shot times the velocity at impact equals the (lethal) energy delivered to the bird. An example would be;

40grains(weight of shot) x 1200fps (velocity at impact) = 48,000ft grains (energy delivered at impact)

40grains(weight of shot) x 1400fps(speed of shot) = 56,000ft grains (energy delivered at impact)

Unless I am mistaken (56000ft grains-48000ft grains)/48000ft grains = 16.67% increase in energy delivered

In case you are wondering 48,000ft grains converts to about 6.85 ft lbs. and 56,000ft grains converts to about 7.99 ft lbs.

Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 728

Sorry Shooting Sioux, but I stand by my comparative analysis.

Both of the equations I gave as examples provide the energy delivered to the target in units of mass (in this case the weight of the shot on the surface of the earth) and distance and the faster shot still delivers only 17% more energy.

The only variable in the equation is velocity in feet per second, all other parts of the equation are constant and, therefore, do not affect the comparative analysis. None of the equations you express result in units of ft lbs of energy.

The correct equation is Force = mass x velocity. (i.e. energy = grains x fps). Lbs-sec squared/ft is not a unit of mass and the acceleration of gravity has nothing to do with the comparison of energy carried by the same mass at different speeds unless you are talking about falling objects over time.

Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 728

There is nothing personal about my refusal to accept your criticism Shooting Sioux. I am often proved wrong many times a day by a lot of people and learn a lot of new and interesting things that way. I do, however, always insist that people prove their point(s) or claim(s) because I do care about the truth. I don't have a problem with subjecting my analysis to criticism by anybody or their credentials; that's why I showed the calculation on which I based my comparison.

You have not yet provided an equation(s) supporting your claim that a 17% increase in shot velocity results in a 36% increase in energy delivered to a target. If your analysis is correct you should have no problem subjecting your calculations to the same scrutiny to which I subjected mine. I am always happy to be further educated.

Joined: 28 Mar 2008 Posts: 1460 Location: Eagle, Nebraska

Having taught Physics, I have to support Sioux on this.
People do the same with recoil, it is not velocity, but acceleration.
KE equation also is a "rate of change" key word is rate.

Sioux is also on the right track (in my opinion) on using higher velocity, smaller shot. It all depends of course on situation. For most upland hunting situations (not all) the small shot, high velocity theory is going to be quite lethal. Hammack takes this to extreme, and also he tends to get higher velocities by using smaller payloads.

Me, I have some reservations about shooting pheasants with 3/4oz of shot. 7/8's makes me a little bit queasy, but did it this year with nice shot. Didn't shoot enough of it to make any qualified statements, but appears to work just fine so far. I will probably be trying 7/8's (actually closer to 15/16's as that is about what my 1oz bar delivers consistently) loads this year on grouse and pheasants.

In reality, I am using my 1oz loads, dropping 15/16 oz or less. Increase in velocity in already higher velocity loads.

This is the same argument defensive handgun people have. Big slow bullets versus small fast bullets... .45 ACP vs 9MM.

They talk about energy transfer - how much impact a projectile will have on a human body, and what constitutes enough stopping power. There are good points on both sides, and there does not seem to be agreement as to "the best". However there is a trend toward "bigger is better".

In none of these discussions is the velocity component in any equation squared. Squaring the velocity would make a 17 grain bullet from a .17 Reminton at 3500 fps approximately equivalent to a .45 ACP 230 grain hardball at 860 fps. I wouldn't want to get hit by either, but I know which one is more likely to incapacitate me.

Guest

Do any of you really BELIEVE that you are covering NEW Ground? And that we need a whole new set of equations? Have the Laws of Physics changed recently?

All this shit you are arguing about has already been tested and made common knowledge 35+ years ago.

I have the original (copies) shotshell exterior ballistic sheets (not the computer program) from E.D. Lowry, for unbuffered lead, buffered lead and steel shot.

Of course, I realize we have among us a whole pile of expert ballisticians that are smarter and more experienced with exterior ballistics, than Mr. Lowry and Winchester Olin.

Since this whole bunch of nonsense started over 7 1/2 shot, I wll give you an example of unbuffered lead 7 1/2 shot.

Example #1

3 foot instrumental velocity - 1330 FPS
muzzle velocity - 1447 FPS - time of flight -0- energy in ft lbs. 5.9
120 feet from muzzle - 656 FPS- time of flight .1318/ sec - energy in ft lbs. 1.21

Example #2

3 foot instrumental velocity - 1240 FPS
muzzle velocity - 1337 FPS - time of flight -0- energy in ft lbs. 5.1
120 feet from muzzle - 631 FPS - time of flight .1385/sec - energy in ft lbs. 1.12

Example #3

3 foot instrumental velocity - 1145 FPS
muzzle velocity - 1241 FPS - time of flight -0- energy in ft lbs. 4.3
120 feet from muzzle - 602 FPS - time of flight .1465/sec - energy in ft lbs. 1.02

And YES the muzzle velocity is that much higher than the 3 foot instrumental.

And YES I double checked to make sure I have the correct figures.

Some will be happy and some will continue to pound away at the keyboard. I am NOT taking sides but somtimes this BB..... frustrates me, to say the least.

There has been NOTHING remarkably new that has happened to exterior shotshell ballistics in a VERY long time, and unless our projectiles change into some fantastic new aerodynamic shape it ain't gonna change either.

BTW the small shot/large shot debate has been going on for years. Both groups are correct and both groups are all wet the truth is somewhere in between.

Personally I wouldn't shoot at a going away rooster with the afterburners on at 30 yards with #9 shot, I dont care if you have the load going 1,500 FPS.

I know for a dumb ole Hillbilly like me I sure am learning or thought I was learning lots of things , untill a couple of my buddies one works at the Ames Research Center and another at the Arnold Air Force Base on the the Light Gas Gun Hyper Velocity Ballistics Ranges , gives me a call and said see what a dumb ole Hillbilly has started with your dang ole Phesant loads .

What can I say ??? What next Will Dr. Stephen Cornford be giving me a call next ??

Boy didn't now one ole dumb Hillbilly could raise such a ruckus .

But I will say I am learning alot , I should have paid attention in math class , oh well like ole Henry Ford said in an interview one time , I just know what buttons to push for answers .

Thanks for all the input folks

Regards Charles

Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 728

I have to side with dogchaser in this debate because it has been calculated, experimented and tested to death already and will rage on forever anyway. If you want to discuss energy delivered at some point downfield after gravity and air resistance have had their way with different projectiles at different velocities striking moving or static targets have at it. My intent was to provide a simple static comparison of a lighter faster load versus a slower heavier load.

The reality is that the field is not a laboratory, and shot selection will have far more effect on lethality than choice of shell. I shoot at ducks directly overhead when I can because their vitals are more exposed. I avoid shooting at geese going away because the lack of shot speed relative to the bird detracts from the energy delivered. All the down and lack of vitals in that area also make it far less likely that you will kill a goose while it is flying away. The most important choices you make are the shots you take and make in the field.

After thumping my brain, I remember the light/heavy bullet people discarded the SQUARE of the velocity only because it skewed the results so heavily toward light, ultrafast bullets - like the .17 Remington. They were not trying to repeal the laws of physics, but rather trying to come up with a rule of thumb to go along with Hatcher's theory of relative stopping power. I remember those discussions being as energetic as some of those that take place here.

The one thing that I remember which was not considered to be a major item in their rule of thumb was the effect of drag. All pistol bullets fell into a fairly narrow velocity range - relative to rifles - and drag was considered to be a minor item.

However, as shotgun pellets are all spherical (we presume), the effect of drag can be considered relative to the size of the pellet. Drag has two major components other than shape - frontal area in square units and velocity cubed. So a 1400 fps pellet (at three feet) will have a velocity drag factor of 1.6 relative to a 1200 fps pellet with a velocity drag factor of 1. This is why pellets with an initial large speed advantage slow down so quickly relative to slower pellets. As the distance traveled increases, the relative speeds converge.

But a larger slower pellet, even though it's frontal area drag factor is much greater than a small pellet, will carry more energy at the target because the kinetic energy formula is the same for both pellets - mass times the square of velocity. And the velocity difference at the target which favors the small - initially much faster - pellet is not big enough to overcome the greater mass of the larger.

So, I guess the old timers were right after all - big bullets do more damage.

Guest