Joined
·
2,618 Posts
I've been thinking about this for a while, and wanted your opinions on if I'm on the right track or not.
Most of us are aware of the current metrics used to measure the effectiveness of bullets, but for those that aren't here's a quick review and some definitions.
Acceleration = change in velocity / change in time
Velocity = speed of bullet travel
Mass = weight of bullet
Kinetic energy = 1/2 * m * v2 = This is commonly referred to as muzzle energy in firearms
Some people advocate for a faster bullet, because velocity (being squared) has a bigger effect on energy than the mass does. Theoretically, this is correct. However, in the real world, it is often misleading.
Force = Mass * acceleration
In a firearms application, Force may be a more appropriate measure of effectiveness because it is an indication of how much of it is transferred to the target. The Acceleration in the formula is provided by the bullet's deceleration in it's target, or how much velocity it loses. So a bullet travelling at 3000 fps that passes through the target and emerges from the other side at 3000 fps applies no Force to the target. A bullet that stops in the target has transferred all of it's Force into the target medium, and a bullet that exits at a lower velocity has transferred some of it's energy to the target.
So my question is, given a calibrated medium such as ballistics gel, wouldn't Force be a more accurate indicator of the mythical stopping power?
The application of Force over a fixed distance is the formula for Work
Work = Force * Distance.
If we standardize a distance of let's say 12", we could come up with an indicator of how much work a bullet would do in a target. The advantage of using Work, or even Force, as an indicator of a bullet's effectiveness is that it tells us how much of that Kinetic Energy that is available is actually transferred to a calibrated target such as ballistics gelatin.
Most of us are aware of the current metrics used to measure the effectiveness of bullets, but for those that aren't here's a quick review and some definitions.
Acceleration = change in velocity / change in time
Velocity = speed of bullet travel
Mass = weight of bullet
Kinetic energy = 1/2 * m * v2 = This is commonly referred to as muzzle energy in firearms
Some people advocate for a faster bullet, because velocity (being squared) has a bigger effect on energy than the mass does. Theoretically, this is correct. However, in the real world, it is often misleading.
Force = Mass * acceleration
In a firearms application, Force may be a more appropriate measure of effectiveness because it is an indication of how much of it is transferred to the target. The Acceleration in the formula is provided by the bullet's deceleration in it's target, or how much velocity it loses. So a bullet travelling at 3000 fps that passes through the target and emerges from the other side at 3000 fps applies no Force to the target. A bullet that stops in the target has transferred all of it's Force into the target medium, and a bullet that exits at a lower velocity has transferred some of it's energy to the target.
So my question is, given a calibrated medium such as ballistics gel, wouldn't Force be a more accurate indicator of the mythical stopping power?
The application of Force over a fixed distance is the formula for Work
Work = Force * Distance.
If we standardize a distance of let's say 12", we could come up with an indicator of how much work a bullet would do in a target. The advantage of using Work, or even Force, as an indicator of a bullet's effectiveness is that it tells us how much of that Kinetic Energy that is available is actually transferred to a calibrated target such as ballistics gelatin.