>>667177

>How can it not be transferred

I'm not that guy, but energy is not conserved in any interaction between two objects. Kinetic energy (a working force) is lost as heat, sound, light, vibration, and the deformation of the bullet itself, all types of energy which are not being applied to the intended target. For example, if a bullet hits a person at 1000 ft-lbs (1350 joules) of energy, less than that 1000 ft-lbs will be applied against his body even if the bullet uses all its energy and does not create an exit wound. How much energy is lost depends on a lot of variables, but in general it's a fraction of the total kinetic energy, and by looking at the formula for energy we can see that energy is more quickly increased by an increase in velocity (since it's squared). However, that also means energy is more quickly lost by a decrease in velocity (whether it is used on the target or simply dissipated, either way), and the measure of momentum is a good way to see that. Higher momentum (mass x velocity) means the object resists slowing, so it keeps more energy over distance.

I will speak from my personal experience hunting here, and I have never fired a rifle round that was more effective than Federal .308 Winchester 180 grain Power-Shok jacketed soft points. The bullets mushroom very well, can penetrate a deer sometimes clean through if shot from the front, and the internal effect is pretty extreme. The SP expands within the first few inches of impact, and creates severe wounding for inches around the bullet's cavity, usually making mincemeat out of the lungs and heart. The organs are just shredded. I used to use the same product in 150gr, and despite being loaded to about the same energy, they were a great deal less effective and sometimes I would have to chase the wounded deer for several minutes before they'd lose their adrenaline and give out. With the 180gr ammo I have never had a deer walk away.

I know it's anecdotal, but it's my experience.

>>667255

I should have said, as I remember the 150gr Power-Shoks did expand earlier, but they did also have significantly less penetration and they were more easily slowed or deflected by impacts against bones, which obviously doesn't help with the instant kill that you hope for when shooting game. Expansion is about equal between the two from what I've seen, but the difference in effectiveness due to energy retention was enough that it was a no-brainer to switch. There is a reason Paul Harrell uses blankets as a bullet stop; the layers of fibers work in a pretty rudimentary way similar to flesh, woven and webbed together and with a lot of capacity to bend and stretch, while also applying constant force to anything going through them as it penetrates. He's had heavier bullets penetrate further in nearly every test he's done, when he was able to get ammo products that were as similar as possible.

My understanding is this: assuming that a cartridge has the right mixture of velocity and mass to start with, and assuming that two loadings have close to the same energy and all other factors are approximately equal (bullet composition, shape, design, etc), the more massive bullet is not guaranteed to be the more effective, but it has good likelihood and opportunity to be more effective. I've also had good results with .357 Magnum 158gr JHP, and .45 ACP 230gr JHP. However, when trying out JHP ammo for 9mm Parabellum, I found that the 115gr and 124gr loads were more effective than the heavier loads (which are overweight for the cartridge's velocity/mass ratio), and I exclusively use Prvi Partizan 115gr JHP now because they were the best and most economical out of the ones I experimented with.

>>667301

>putting words in my mouth

>putting more words in my mouth

>you're stupid based on my strawman of your post!

Relax your anus, dude. I didn't insult you or try to say you were wrong, and what you just posted doesn't qualify as an argument. And no, extremely fast bullets do not always penetrate deeper as a rule, due to factors such as fragmentation and deflection. Super light and fast bullets break up on impact and the resultant smaller fragments lack the necessary momentum to continue penetrating as far in a soft target as a solid projectile would have; 5.56 NATO M193 and M855 are proofs of this. Work on being less emotionally invested in an opinion. All I said were things that I had observed from my own shooting experience, and conclusions that I drew based on those experiences. I didn't call you a dipshit, so don't be so disingenuous.

>>667426

>Small projectiles have poor penetration not because they're light, but because they're not very energetic in relation to their impact cross section.

Because momentum, the measure representing an object's current force and direction in motion, and its resistance to a change in said motion, is not affected by mass? Because losing mass does not affect the energy of an object? You're being awfully condescending when it seems like you're conveniently ignoring the fact that there being less of something means it has less potential energy, by definition. If this were not true then there would no reason to make heavy projectiles, period, and all firearms science would have been thrown out decades ago and we'd all be using varmint cartridges exclusively.

I never at any point implied that physics isn't real, and fuck you for being so intellectually dishonest as to make an assertion like that. I'm telling you that we can observe the results of physics in practice, in real life, and there is no book of formulas thick enough for you to simulate all the complex nuances between the literal hundreds of variables depending on what you shoot, from which direction, what you hit, using what round, and so on. Especially not something as daycare-tier simplified as 'GOTTA GO FAST is everything' while pretending that things you will realistically be shooting at are in any reality a consistent material, density, positiion, or whatever else. Physics does not happen in a vacuum, and unless you have ever handled a firearm in real life or watched a lot of other people doing it, that's not something you can replicate just by plugging numbers. You can't just claim that things matter or don't matter because you said so, that's a faith-based argument and thus it's completely worthless. Models are theory. Evidence is proof.

>>667429

>being illiterate

Nigger, potential energy is what an object possesses based on its position in relation to another object and what it would take to make object A reach object B. That's an object at point x with mass n and 0 current velocity, with another object at x1, to explain it as simply as possible. If you had actually read my post you would understand why I used that term in that context, and you would have noticed that I differentiated it from kinetic energy as mentioned throughout the rest of that post and my others. Thanks for admitting you have nothing to contribute to this thread.

>>667430

You do have a point about bullet design, and although it's been a while since I've had any of the 150grs around, I believe that I remember the design of the two rounds being basically the same - same brand and product, after all. The 180gr is just a little longer, but they're about identical apart from that, so it's likely that that particular design simply isn't as good at a lighter weight - as a .30 caliber spitzer, with a certain profile and composition and so on as I mentioned before.

It might be concluded that for a specific bullet type in a given cartridge, there are 'sweet spots' in the velocity:mass ratio; that is to say, if energy remains close to the same as a standard load, then the 'best' loads for a certain task (say, shooting amorphous ayylmaos) could be found within a range of lighter/faster and heavier/slower. Obviously, the limit is when you want your bullet too fast or too heavy and the round loses energy unless there is a significant increase in pressure, which would then change how those things scale against each other, since suddenly you can increase one variable while the other remains constant, for a net gain in energy.

I would say that large, high caliber cartridges, such as .45-70, have probably the widest acceptable range of velocities and masses, and smaller rounds axiomatically have less wiggle room. Would you agree?