Talk:Terminal ballistics - Knowledge (XXG)

2064:

place with non-expanding bullets. The fact is that using a properly calibrated hollow point/cavity bullet does reduce penetration at the far end of the kinetic transfer slope. A solid bullet that would penetrate 14" with a 1" wound trail is not very effective. Even fackler notes that the .45ACP creates a wound like an ice pick. But an expanding bullet, whether it's a soft point, hollow point, hollow cavity, or pointed ballistic tip that transfers energy quickly will inflict the greatest damage. In fact, it's not the bullet type that determines the amount of damage, it's the impact velocity. Hornady mentions this in their documentation. Velocity is the key to performance in conjunction with the bullet design. Here are a few examples that confound the Hatcher and Big Bullet fans; The .223 Rem in 55grain FMJBT inflicts a 5.5" diameter wound about 6 to 8" deep without being an expanding bullet. Substituting a hollow point would move the point of greatest tissue damage forward, but generally does not cause more damage. Using an LP gas cylinder as a target the .219 Hornet creates a hole through the tank. The same diameter bullet from a .220 swift creates a hole in the front side of the tank only. But the entrance damage is vastly different. The .219 makes an entry hole about 1" in diameter and appears to have bent the edges inward. The .220 Swift creates a hole where the edges have flowed back toward the shooter. The hole is clean and approximately the size of the bullet. After penetration the bullet broke up and instead of penetrating the back of the tank, punched out an impression about 6" across. (Don't try this with a pressurized tank) Both, by the way were solids, but it would not have mattered if either was a hollow point because the amount of energy transfer was NOT affected by fluid dynamics (water) as it would be if an animal were the target.

1463:

less than an 80 grain ultra-low drag bullet. This high instability requires a fast barrel twist (the military uses 1 in 7, you can get away with 1 in 10 for short range) and fast twist barrels tend to wear faster. If sectional density were the only goal, they could shoot an 80 grain VLD (very low drag) bullet, and stretch the range of the 5.56mm out quite a bit further--more so than even a standard military 7.62mm load. Current shooters shooting the 77 and 80 grain 5.56 are actually outshooting the tried at true 7.62mm rounds at distances beyond 300 meters, a feat long thought impossible. In fact, the 1000 yard matches at Perry have been won by an AR-15, 1 in 7 twist, firing 80 grain low drag bullets, which are still supersonic at 1000 yards! Blew the 7.62mms away, since they had to deal with the effects of dropping subsonic before the target. While you could scale the bullet design up and get a 7.62mm to do subsonic out to 1000 yards, it's going to be one heck of a massive bullet. Switching to an 80 grain VLD isn't practical for the military however (excepting maybe snipers) at the moment; the 80 grain VLD requires a dense core, so a steel tip is out, but tungsten might just be the key. Depends on which direction the military goes when they phase out lead bullets; if they go with a higher density, high strength material like tungsten, then the VLD design becomes quite practical. If they go with something like bismuth, then they'll still need a hardened tip, and hitting the 80 grain mark may be impossible with practical twist rates.

1473:

drop a volleyball from 12th floor and I'll catch it down in the street, and then we switch positions and I'll shoot at you from the 12th floor and you try to catch the bullet. Sounds like a plan?) Punching a hole into some material requires energy. Removing material requires work. This is 7th or 8th grade physics (at least where I come from) and the laws of nature still apply. Unfortunately some mystical unexplainable stopping power that nobody can describe anymore since granddad died 10 years ago is not relevant. I have no doubt everyone still immediately recognizes these magic bullets filled to the brim with mean, pure, unadulterated all-Americann stopping power when they see them (no doubt some .45ACP or similar would qualify) ... hydrashhock bullets rock!!! (actually can not expand since they are traveling too slow for that)...What else? oh yeah, temporary wound cavity doesn't matter! Well dude, if someone drives a scredriver all the way through your thigh and then proceeds to tear the exit wound about 4 inches wide followed by inserting a knife into the wound channel to convert a pound of your muscle into hamburger meat which is then forcefully removed from the wound and liberally spread all over the next wall leaving a horribly shredded hole all the way through your thigh and lots of blood shooting out of the destroyed and badly torn vessels, would that make you change your mind?

1532:

bullets are often too stable to tumble, but most .30 caliber and lower bullets with long, sharply pointed noses are quite unstable. A marginal spin also helps the tendency to tumble--for example, the early AR-15 rifles had a twist rate barely adequate to stabilize the inherently unstable pointed bullet, and so it would tumble almost immediately on impact--unfortunately, it would also tumble in the air at long range. Devastating at close range, it couldn't hit the target at long range (it was designed for a 300m max range). With a faster twist rage, the accuracy improved, but the lethality went down since the bullets didn't tumble as fast, and would often pass right through. The SS109 would be much more stable if solid lead or steel, but the steel tip makes it backheavy, decreasing stability even more, so it tumbles quickly, but fragments at the cannelure (which is also the lead/steel junction and thus quite weak) as soon as it turns sideways. The two fragments each tumble through the target and create separate wound cavities. Since the surface area of the two halves is greater than the surface area of the single bullet, the total temporary and permanent cavities are larger, plus the divergent paths increase the probablility of a hit on a critical organ.

1526:. A permanent cavity, however, involves the tearing of tissue, which opens blood vessels and allows bleeding. Once again consider the case of the arrow--the permanent cavity from an arrow wound is almost nonexistant, as the flesh seals right up after the passage of the arrow. However, the cuts left by the arrowhead still bleed, and can cause death quickly. The cut surface is what is important here, as that is what allows the bleeding that is the debilitating factor in most arrow wounds (shots to the blood vessel rich heart/lung area provide the fastest bleed-outs, due to the large number of vessels and the fact that the lungs have area to bleed into). I think the critical factor for a non-critical hit is a combination of the number of blood vessels opened by the bullet's passage, and the amount of bloodloss that the remaining permanent cavity allows. If the temporal cavity ruptures organs, then it would certainly have a significant impact, but on more flexible tissue like skin and muscle, the impact would be significantly less. 528:

push a bullet to the desired depth and expand to a large diameter is going to be a more powerful cartridge than one that hits the same depth with a smaller diameter. Picking a bullet based on large diameter expanded size alone will just get you a bullet that underpenetrates. Bullets may be designed to expand reliably to a certain diameter, but they are also designed to do so at a certain range of velocities, and that implies a certain range of penetration. Be sure that the designers pick the penetration range first, and then design the expanded diameter to match that. Optimum penetration is everything; overpenetration is inconvinent (it can be handled by more accurate shot placement or additional shots) but underpenetration is catastroohic--and there's nothing the shooter can do about it.

2168:

concept of comparing a deer to a human is ludicrous. I have seen that some areas require a minimum energy level of 1500 ft.lbs to hunt deer. .30-30 produces 1834 ft.lbs so it qualifies. .223 Rem with the usual .55 grain fmjbt bullet produces only 1330 ft. lbs and is so excluded from hunting deer. On the other hand .44 Magnum (handgun) which some people think of as fine deer cartridge produces only 971 ft. lbs. energy. The appropriate cartridge for game has gained a huge amount of power over the past few decades. When you don't expect to eat the meat it destroys unnecessarily, this is not much of a consideration. Hunters who needed to live off their kills did not use the excessive power we see so often today. They also didn't try to kill game at 400 yards and more as "sport."

1645:

bullet at 290 m/s. I think the issue there is there's not enough energy to generate a "temporary cavity" 9mm in diameter. Maybe if the bolt tapered very gradually from 9mm down to a needle point, you'd get some penetration, but then surface drag would start to play a major role... At any rate, even at airgun velocities of 150 m/s, the projectile has enough energy to generate a significant temporary cavity; wax is ideal for observing this, since it's not elastic and shows you the full diameter cavity generated by impact (pneumatic airguns are great for this, you can watch as increased velocities gradually increase the crater diameter). Hmmm, maybe that's where the viscocity comes in, the temporary cavity has got to be related to viscosity, don't you think?

559:

dependent on expansion, and you agree to this. The point I was trying to make is, I think, the same as yours, although perhaps I didn't state it with sufficient clarity. Penetration is the #1 most important issue when dealing with terminal ballistics in soft targets. Once you hit the desired penetration depth, then expansion is a good thing, because then you are doing the disruption in the vital areas, and not wasting energy by exiting the target. Your .357 vs. .38 comparison is applicable, but only because the FBI reccommended minimum is sufficient to traverse a human chest cavity from any reasonable angle. 6 inches of penetration is generally enough;

1827:

is transferred to the target. Where the typical firearm fan fails is in understanding the variability of the rate of transfer and who this is more affected by velocity than by momentum. Energy transfer is comparable to having energy in a bank. You can withdraw that energy at different rates. If you need energy to penetrate a hard target, you may need all of that energy in an instant. But if you want to penetrate some distance against the viscous target and expend energy while doing so you may need to withdraw that energy at a reduce rate, otherwise you end up with no sufficient damage on the target.

1116:

number of potential target hits." There is no "fierce debate"; maybe only on internet forums. There does seem to be a slight bias towards .45 ACP; the 9mm is now the standard military pistol round; the main reason it is kept by few special forces is due mainly to its subsonic, therefore more easily silenced, ability. 15 or 17 rounds in the M9 is much preferable to 7 rounds of .45acp with its larger recoil and shorter range. From experience I will say that there is no common debate I've heard, in the military or with knowledgeable civilians and law enforcement. No law enforcement carries .45 acp.

2162:

not know. The comparison of the power needed to kill deer and humans is a very tenuous comparison without any true basis. The amount of power used to hunt animals is far in excess of that needed to kill. The goal of the ethical hunter is to kill quickly so that the animal doesn't suffer. The goal in warfare is to injure a soldier to force him out of combat and (hopefully) take 2 soldiers with him while he is evacuated from the combat line. The goal of the Police Officer who has to use deadly force is also NOT to kill, but to stop the dangerous actions of a miscreant as quickly as practical.

1625:

which uses more energy than a slow bullet moving the same amount of tissue. Since the rate the tissue must move is a function of velocity, a bullet moving twice as fast must expend twice the energy to accelerate the tissue away, thus it slows down faster. Yes, it is the energy that does the work, but doubling the velocity doubles the energy required to penetrate, so you're back down to a linear function of penetration vs. velocity. I've done the math (years ago), and what I came up with was that penetration was a function of kg / (m * s) which is, not coincidentally, the unit used to measure

784:

path, thus a higher velocity increases crush efficiency. Higher velocity also gives the bullet more momentum (Not energy. Try looking up some high school level physics. Transfer of momentum is what causes movement as a result of impact.), so more momentum is transferred to tissue in the form of temporary cavitation. This increases the crush efficiency and temporary "stretch" cavity diameter by an amount roughly proportional to the increase in velocity. But that's it. That's the only effect of increased energy on a given expansion and penetration performance.

1609:

A slow arrow will cut through the meat, or move through flesh like a boat through water. A slow handgun bullet will crush the meat in its path but won't do much to the surrounding tissue. A fast rifle bullet will cause a big temporary cavity, and when you believe that tissue stretched at several hundred meters per second will not damage vessels and nerves then you are wrong. These are three totally dissimilar modes of action, and trying to unite them under "one (i.e. my favorite) explanation fits all" is very very questionable. No more faith based science please.

579:

and/or fat. On the other hand, I certainly would choose a .357 that penetrated 12" over a .22 that penetrated 12" (assuming recoil and firearm size (suitability to purpose) allowed the bigger caliber). Now if I'm given a choice of bullets that, with the same muzzle energy, penetrate 12" vs. 60", I'd definately go with the 12" penetration bullet if 12" is beyond my minimum requirement. If my minimum requirement is 16", however, I'm not going to trust the bullet that penetrates 12"; I'll go with the 60" of penetration and live with the attendent loss of energy.

2041:

buckshot, or even birdshot, may be chosen over 00 or slugs, to minimize wall penetration. A low powered hollow point is much less effective against a polar bear (or a human in body armor) than a FMJ spitzer would be, so one can't say hollow points are always ideal for maximizing damage to the intended target, either. I think it's good for the article to point out that avoiding overpenetration means that the target will absorb all of the ballistic energy, but don't see much point in generalizing about the motives of the world's ammo purchasers.

1762:

deeper the crater. At high enough velocities, all impacts become inelastic--take a look at a high velocity impact, and even the hardest substances "splash" like liquids. With a velocity high enough, hardness (a constant) is so overwhelmed by the inertial forces involved (which increase with velocity), that a blob of mercury will penetrate better than a steel ball, because it has a much higer density (13.5 vs 7.5ish g/ml). The trick then is to get said blob of mercury accelerated up to several km/s, and holding its shape while it does so...

2023:

regard for the other. Since deformation is a major mechanism for momentum dissipation, the two effects, penetration and deformation, can't be separated; the more of one, the less of the other, necessarily (for a ballistic object). It is simply counter-intuitive that a person firing a weapon with the intent of hurting or killing an animal is (ie in all shooting except target shooting) less concerned with actually hurting or killing that animal than of damage to background objects, although it does make a good politically correct sound-bite.

1930:

spaceflight validation testing of the multi-layer inflatable shell technology is quite relevant to an article on terminal ballistics. I know that many of the contributors/readers of this article are interested in rifle and handgun projectile terminal ballistics, but I would very much appreciate it if someone would review my changes and make, or suggest, improvements. If folks are interested, I could add an image of the multilayer shell ballistic shield technology. Thanks, and Cheers.

567:

the exit side. Horse skin resists penetration as much as 8" of horse muscle (probably the equivalent of 10-12" gelatin) on entrance. A rib, or the skull (of a human), adds approximately 2-4 more inches. So a penetration of 6" would not even be guaranteed to puncture a lung, if it hits a rib or the sternum. Assuming the heart is located about 1" behind the sternum, a bullet would need 8-9" of penetration just to to puncture the heart on a perfectly placed frontal torso shot.

1507:

which is about what you'd expect out of a .22 Short in a 2" barrelled gun. So are you going to go deer hunting with a .22 Short? Admittedly, the .22 Short was developed by S&W for their first pocket revolver, but current though is that the .380 ACP at 130 ft-lb is the absolute minimum for self defense use, and many put it up over 200 ft-lb. The same site says 65 ft-lb is the minimum for Cape Buffalo and grizzly bears; that's still less than a .22 Long Rifle.

467: 357: 315: 336: 2092:

Similarly 5.7 x 28mm inflicts more damage than .45 ACP especially under the special condition it was created for, armor penetration. these are facts that I doubt many people know. I can almost guarantee that there are people who claim to be experts and write for magazines who can NEVER explain why their pet theories don't work, but adhere to them anyway. As Larry the Luddite says, "don't try to confuse me with the facts."

668:

penetrates to the same depth as a .29 cal, 69.6 grain wadcutter with the same velocity on it. But, because of its construction, it effectively makes a perfect, 3/4" wide hole for the entirety of its penetration depth. Even a .44 magnum which expands to .75" won't make a .75" hole through most tissues, because the rounded shape allows some tissue to flow around it, relatively unharmed aside from minor stretching damage.

1945: 1964:, the private company that acquired the technology from NASA and has further developed (circa 2005) the ballistic capture technology since, has built a test device for firing projectiles at various test samples at 7 km/s. That too might be an interesting addition to the final paragraph of the Hypervelocity section. I found the source by following the links at the end of the article mentioned in the Ext. links ( 453: 191: 1522:). The resulting cavity after stretch is the permanent cavity. As for temporal vs. permanent cavity arguments, I think they're both wrong, or rather half right. A punch in the stomach generates a fist-sized temporary cavity, yet a death from such a punch is rare except in the case where the stretching causes significant damage to a major organ--for example, the ruptured appendix that killed 329: 243: 222: 829:

damage), and exited out the back. Didn't even knock her out, but she did have a terrible headache. A lot of the brain isn't particularly vital for continued function of the body. Basically, anything which doesn't take out the brain stem or cervical spinal cord (directly, or indirectly via oxygen starvation via blood pressure loss) isn't 100% guaranteed to put a person or animal down.

649:

energy really kick a 1 pound lead block 500 feet? Of course not. The acceleration on the block is going to be a product of momentum transfer, with some KE being conserved (in the momentum of the block+bullet), and the rest being "lost" as heat, noise, deformation, etc. Deformation is hard to put a figure to, though, since it's dependent on both the momentum and the energy level.

367: 485: 343: 1847:

going in the opposite direction and inflicting damage on the target. So the faster the impact, the more energy will be absorbed from the bullet IF it can be transferred. That's where expanding bullets aid in inflicting higher levels of damage. They increase their surface area which for any given velocity will transfer energy faster.

944:

is pseudoscience", then penetration ought to be directly linearly proportional to velocity. Since you claim it is logrithmic (I'll agree to the rough shape if not the exact function that generates it--I doubt it's that simple) then penetration vs. energy, for a given mass and frontal area, are going to vary pretty close to linearly.

1022:

energy to create that acceleration. That energy is transferred from the bullet's velocity into the gelatine, where it has to go somewhere. It goes into heat, and at 5000 fps you're definately going to be generating enough heat upon impact to vaporize some of the gelatine, and the shockwaves and going to just disintegrate the block.

1138:

attractive forces between atoms are irrelevant compared to the momentum of the atoms. The repulsive forces, on the other hand, increase as much as necessary as the thing compresses. If you like, you can think of it as "...behaves like a powder" or "...behaves like a plastic", since all those things behave the same at these speeds.

1616:"Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding." 1315:

of impact deforms it just as though it were a liquid. The same principle would apply to a shaped charge, the liner would be forged into a rod and "squirted" out into the target by the converging pressure waves. Under forces and timescales like that, the terms "solid" and "liquid" really have no meaning.

2146:

handgun, though in others (e.g., Colorado) the hottest .357 magnum loads would still be illegally underpowered, being incapable of 550 foot pounds at 50 yards. So while I fully agree with the editor's point that 90% of handguns are much less powerful than 90% of rifles, I'm going to delete that sentence.

743:

or cranium and stops, it still likely causes enough blunt trauma to knock out, stun, or paralyze the target. Similarly, if a bullet with massive temporary cavitation passes close by the spine, the rapidly-moving tissues surrounding the spine can whack into it hard enough to generate a stunning effect.

2241:

Which of my recent 1100 edits do you disagree with? I don't make suggestions EXCEPT to correct errors. Sourcing of references is always a problem. Sometimes the only ones that have SOME credible information are ones that some people don't like. I don't like political and commercial bias. My prime

2161:

While reading the history of the development of .223 Remington I ran across a statement that it takes 84 foot pounds of energy to kill a human. The .22 Short will kill a person very effectively but it has only 70 ft. lbs energy so that is clearly a goal established based on some criterion that we do

2091:

Being a bit devious in this example: 9 x 19mm Luger (German full power) FMJ (hardball) inflicts more damage than ANY 1980 and prior .45 ACP load, hollow or solid point; always has and always will. I can get very unfair in this example from 1961: .22 Jet inflicts much more damage than .38 Special.

2077:

The failure to understand why this happens is the great failing of those who talk about terminal ballistics. The people who know what they are talking about, are the hunters who have seen the actual results. To give another anecdotal example: .22 Long Rifle SOLID inflicts MORE damage on small game

2063:

It is unlikely that hollow point ammunition (which is found almost entirely in rifle cartridges now as handguns have moved to hollow cavity designs that actually work) was ever designed to limit penetration. The purpose for expanding ammunition is to transfer more energy to the target than was taking

2022:

I challenge the claim that hollow points are used principally to limit penetration. All of the reading I've done is exactly opposite the claim that internal damage is a side-effect and limiting penetration is the major reason they are used. Any particular user might be motivated by either with little

1826:

Bullet weight is constant, but energy is not. Neither is the amount of resistance that a bullet meets when it strikes a semi-plastic material. When this happens, resistance is highly variable. The way this is stated is wrong. Penetration is determined by the RATE at which energy is expended as it

1790:

Would expanded bullets do? I can probably arrange some pictures of those in various calibers (though I don't have any expanded bullets, so I'd have to go shooting and trap some). I'd love some high speed photos of impacts, but I don't have the equipment to do that. With the right camera and flash,

1644:

Have at it based on units, then, and see what units you end up with in the end. I'll bet if you break things down into mass, distance, and time, you'll get the same results. As for the volleyball, I think you might be right on that; I show a 210g volleyball at about 13 m/s being the equal of a 9.5g

1571:

Scot I am the guy who brought up the public school system comment, and I want to apologize. I still disagree with you though. 1. Reguarding tumbling rifle bullets, the statement that "all rifle bullets tumble eventually" is false; only bullets whose center of mass is significantly behind their center

1506:

So that's a 25 ft-lb arrow, passing through a 12" thick deer--12" is the FBI's minimum penetration requirement, so that's a perfect minimum for us (that's 34 joules and 34 cm). Now, if we convert that to the velocity required to launch a 29 grain bullet (that's what a .22 Short uses) we get 631 f/s,

1429:

Why? It is still solid, but the massive forces involved cause it to behave plastically. Modelling clay is also able to be squeezed and squished into various shapes, potentially at very high velocities if large forces are involved, but is still "technically in a solid state." The molecules will not

1115:

I only had time to skim over to make sure this wasn't directly covered: "Especially where the military requirement of a nonexpanding round is concerned, there is fierce debate over whether it is better to have fewer, larger bullets for enhanced terminal effects, or more, smaller bullets for increased

1065:

Now at what point this heat energy has a significant impact on wounding I don't know, but I've blown enough 2 liter plastic bottles full of water into tiny bits of shredded plastic using a .223 Remington JHP to know that that energy does have a significant impact (if you'll pardon the physics pun) on

1001:

But the question is, given 12" thick block of gelatin, does the 5000 fps. bullet wound more than the 700 fps bullet? The slower bullet will still penetrate over 20" give your formula, so both meet minimum penetration requirements. The 5000 fps bullet is going to lose FAR more energy passing through

965:

For instance, the penetration of .45 caliber, 230 grain hardball is very accurately modeled by the equation Y = 22.5 * Ln X - 126. Y is inches of penetration into 10% gelatin, and X is striking velocity in feet per second. Within the 700 to 5000 fps range, it correlates with calculated data greater

955:

Putting energy into a graph instead of velocity still results in a logarithmic curve; one which goes up even slower. Unfortunately, fluid dynamic interactions involving velocity changes are far too complex to model with a single equation; the higher the velocity, the faster it loses velocity, due to

904:

pressure, they would penetrate the same amount. In a medium in which pressure does not matter, and in the absence of gravity, the penetration would be roughly equal. In most mediums, though, like water, increased pressure at increased velocity causes diminishing returns (logarithmic correlation) on

772:

I strongly recommend against Hydra-Shocks, though. Unbiased, 3rd party testing shows that the central post does nothing to prevent clogging of the hollowpoint cavity due to wood, metal, clothing, etc., and the 4-layer IWBA denim test causes every single Hydra-Shock in every single caliber to fail to

553:

Number five is expanded diameter. Once the first four requirements are fulfilled, expanded diameter is king. What would work better out of a .357 wheelgun, a fullhouse magnum 158 gr softpoint which expands to double diameter and penetrates 12", or a 147 gr .38 SPL target wadcutter at a leisurly 700

2167:

The only real comparison in killing humans versus deer is that both can be killed with bullets from firearms cartridges. So can Elk, Bear, Moose, Bison. Elephant (a long time ago) were often taken with 7 x 57mm Mauser ( 2056 ft. lbs.) but typical Elephant guns now go to almost 7000 ft. lbs. So the

1836:

A really good example of this would be the original .45 Colt. Firing a 240 grain bullet at 600 fps, it's wounds, while of course capable of killing, were often simple one, with minor sized wound channels. The later version of this cartridge, .45 ACP fired a 230 grain bullet at 865 fps. The modern

1761:

Energy in an inelastic collision goes into deformation of the substances. A steel ball hitting a steel ball, like those little pendulum toys, is an elastic collision and the energy is preserved. An airgun pellet into wax expends its energy cratering the wax--the more energy involved, the wider and

1743:

Energy only plays a role in penetration in either impacts between solids, or impacts between like materials (water hitting wate), I can't remember which right now. Flesh is somewhere between fluid and solid, and bullets are most definitely solid. Test data has shown that living tissue behaves more

1739:

Oh, I should probably add that penetration depth is not quite based on momentum/impulse divided by frontal area. This actually _is_ the case, between the penetration threshold velocity and the cavitation threshold velocity. But above the cavitation threshold, the equation is based on frontal area,

1639:

I'd like to check your calculations and show you where you went wrong, but unfortunately I cannot make much sense out of those units (at least not at 3am in the morning). Let's just say I'd be willing to catch that volleyball even if it had a 9mm iron bolt through the middle sticking out for an inch

1624:

Penetration is a factor of how much tissue the bullet can move out of its way as it pentrates, and how much energy is required to move said tissue. A fat bullet must move more tissue, so the penetration is inversely proportional to surface area. A fast bullet must move the tissue at a higher rate,

1608:

If your theory is correct that penetration depth depends on impulse per frontal area then this will revolutionise impact physics, metal manufacture, accident research and what not. I think the last 200 years of published physical literature prove you wrong. Chopping some wood will do the same, btw.

1596:

and providing aerodynamic stability. Even these will tumble in the target, but only under extreme conditions, such as an oblique impact. And as to modern boattail spitzer bullets tumbling, they don't always--as a matter of fact, the Swiss deliberatley re-engineered the bullet used in their service

1512:

Now let's look at the other side--what does it take to get the same momentum as the arrow? Let's do the easy math, and calculate for a 40 grain bullet. That would mean 1700 fps, which is about what a .22 WMR would produce. Yet the .22 WMR, if it mushroomed out to 9mm diameter (not unlikely with a

1481:

First, reguarding units, I work in English units where ballistics are concerned because the information available to me is in English units--those Hydra-Shok bullets, you'll note, are 230 grains, not 14.9 grams. And for the purposes of penetration, energy is irrelevant; the distance penetrated is a

1476:

All rifle bullets tumble and eventually turn around inside the target if they are given the opportunity. How deep they will penetrate straight before turning around or even disintegrating(creating the wound cavity in the process) depends on several factors including speed, what kind of tissue is hit

1314:

At sufficiently high speeds, the hardness of a solid becomes essentially irrelevant, as the inertia provides nearly all the resitance to deformation--this is why, say, a lead bullet hitting a steel plate splashes. At those speeds, the hardness of lead is so small as to be irrellevant, and the force

1021:

The reason it loses more energy is that the 700 fps. bullet must accelerate the gelatine at (and this is a WAG) about 330k Gs upon impact to move it sideways enough that the bullet can pass through. The 5000 fps. bullet will have to do it at 1.6M Gs. That's 5x the acceleration, which means 25x the

996:

Now, if anyone can explain how a greater amount of energy somehow magically enhances a given bullet's performance aside from the modest increases in crush efficiency and temporary cavitation, I'm all ears. The catch is, it has to involve actual science. "The bullet with more energy wounds more due

943:

Mass and penetration, for a given velocity, are linearly proporitonal. Frontal area and penetration, for a given mass and velocity, are inversely linearly proportional. If momentum (mass times velocity) is the only concern for penetration, as you seem to imply above when you say ""Energy transfer"

875:

Only if you claim that the correlation between energy and momentum is nil, and it's not, especially when you consider that you have a limited mass range to work with. By the "energy doesn't matter" arugment, you're better off lobbing a 16 lb. chunk of rebar at the 1.8 fps than a 230 grain bullet at

839:

Energy also does not correlate whatsoever with penetration depth. Too many people believe that energy and penetration depth are proportional. Try this simple experiment. Inflate a balloon, then throw it at modest speed. Note how far it travels. Now throw the balloon roughly twice as fast as you

816:

I've even done some research in forensic medicine. Once you read the account of the guy who took out most of his cereberal cortex with a .45 ACP under the chin, then walked around for 3 hours in a lucid state before lying down and finally bleeding to death, you don't take any theory involving wound

2315:

Accepted. I do not care for this page. Before I edited the top section it was even worse than it is now. I see no reason for this page to exist in it's form. There is no purpose and it's nothing but a bunch of irrelevant facts that no one is going to read. In that respect, I'm happy because no

1929:

I made a fairly substantial addition to this section today showing two real-world technology examples of soft-shell ballistic shield technology, with several citations. Since these are so difficult to test on earth due to the difficulty of accelerating particles to sufficient velocity, I think the

1867:

media. Shooters found out more than a century ago that faster = better with regard to cartridge characteristics. That's why with the passage of time cartridges have been created which produce faster and faster velocities while ALSO reducing felt recoil by using smaller diameter bullets fired faster.

1658:

Actually, no they don't. The temporary cavitation threshold velocity in ballistic gelatin/living swine tissue can be calculated using MacPherson's equations. Duncan MacPherson is a literal rocket scientist, who did aerodynamics equations for the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo rocket launches (IIRC),

1634:

I'm not saying the is the end-all and be-all of penetration calculations, as it does not take into account shape at all, but it should allow relative comparisions of similarly shaped bullets. Flat pointed bullets will penetrate less, as they must accelerate the tissue much faster to push it out of

1462:

This is very much false; while the greater sectional density does lead to greater penetration, the steel tip is there specifically to resist deformation and improve penetration of hard armor. The steel tip makes the SS109 quite unstable, as it makes it even longer and more back heavy than anything

1086:

Heating due to energy transfer was a popular theory in the 19th century and before. People believed that all lost energy was converted into heat, which boiled away flesh into steam and melted the bullet; hence, a high velocity bullet had a deformed, "melted" appearance, while a low velocity bullet

844:

Energy is not what gives you penetration, momentum vs. viscocity is, with a bit of fiddling for aero/hydrodynamics (which mainly has to do with how fast the fluid must be accelerated past the contours of the object--so back to momentum and viscocity). If energy were the only concern, we'd be using

742:

Animals don't faint, however, and sometimes people collapse without fainting, too. That's due to CNS damage. A bullet which impacts the spine or cranium and punches through will likely cause instant unconsciousness, followed by death due to blood loss or neurological damage. If it hits the spine

700:

In that case, though, it's still not "energy transfer." It's pathetically small hole size. A 1 pound ice pick stabbed into a person at some velocity loses the exact same amount of energy in the target as a 1 pound dagger at that velocity. The effect is different, despite identical energy levels,

596:

For instance, let's say a handloaded 147 gr LHBWC at light magnum energies penetrates 30". A heavily loaded 180 grain flat-point with the same energy penetrates deeper. Now, the 180 grain would have lower pressure on its tip, but it would still be more than enough PSI to crush a hole which is the

566:

Far from it. What everyone forgets to mention about jello testing is that skin has a far, far greater tensile strength than the muscle which calibrated gelatin simulates. Human torso skin resists penetration by projectiles as much as 2" of muscle/gelatin on the entrance side, and as much as 4" on

2264:

It is unclear to me under which names / IPs you previously edited this article to make 1100 edits. Knowledge (XXG) is an international project, so yes I could disagree with sourcing this article to one USA source from the FBI which does not appear to be cited in this article. I would again suggest

2095:

Things have changed recently. In the premier issue of Ballistic Magazine 12 of 14 writers found that 9mm Luger was superior to .45 ACP. The two who didn't think 9 was outright superior claimed that .45 ACP could equal 9 in some conditions. Of course most readers of firearms news NOW are aware of

1876:

There is a physical science scaling problem which started to be noticed with .223 Rem which seems to be causing problems with the attempts to produce smaller caliber cartridges that are as efficient as the .224 bullet cartridges are. All cartridge designs are a compromise designed for suitability

1818:

The importance of bullet weight to penetration was demonstrated by John Linebaugh as a part of his Linebaugh Seminar held in Cody, Wyoming . In a nutshell, Linebaugh's results demonstrated once again that penetration of a non-expanding hard-cast bullet is a primarily a function of bullet momentum,

1531:

Reguarding tumbling rifle bullets, the statement that "all rifle bullets tumble eventually" is false; only bullets whose center of mass is significantly behind their center of lateral pressure have enough yawing force to overcome the stabilizing effects of the bullet's spin and tumble. Large bore

1472:

OMG! The products of the American public school system... faith based science where energy is irrelevant and momentum matters (!!! Dude, a 9mm bullet has the momentum of a volleyball falling 30 meters or something like that, oops that's 100 feet for you. Anyway, let's make a little experiment, you

558:

Items 1 and 2 are internal/external ballistics issues. Item 3 is a combination of internal, external, terminal, and usability issues, so suitability is dependent on terminal ballistics, not vice versa, so it can be ignored when discussing terminal ballistics in isolation. Item 4, penetration, is

527:

I am of the opinion that expanded bullet diameter is essentially meaningless when picking a bullet for a given purpose; the choice should always be made based on penetration, and the diameter is merely a secondary issue. The reason that bullet diameter is often touted is that a cartridge that can

1560:

I took a look, and it seems to me to be laid out fairly logically--of course, I wrote the bulk of the aritcle, so maybe it's just laid out the way I think. If you have any specific suggestions on what sort of formatting might be better, and what sort of information needs to be added, I'd welcome

804:

impressive, it doesn't do much at handgun velocities. A fragmenting bullet which retains 50% or more of its mass, and is moving faster than 2,000 fps, though, is able to tear living tissues slightly. The fragmentation weakens tissue significantly, which allows the temporary stretch to tear it.

1866:

Correct. This is a basic physical science tenent. It's quite foolish to talk about one of two interrelated factors as if it's more important. The sum of mass times velocity equals energy. Energy is the source of disruption that also happens to be speed sensitive when passing through any other

1846:

Another example, but I'll use AIR. The Bugatti Veyron produces 1250 horsepower. It can reach 260 mph. But to get to 275 it needs more than 200 horsepower more. The resistance RISES with velocity in air, and in semi-plastic targets. When we are talking about bullet impacts, that resistance is

1703:

I haven't had time yet (finals week) to write Mr. MacPherson and ask if he minds terribly if I let people know the equations, or distribute my spreadsheet which calculates results based on his equations. He will probably say no, since the equations are one of the selling points for the book (at

1486:

doesn't penetrate as far as a 9mm is because the volleyball has 331,662 mm^2 of frontal surface area, compared to 63.8 mm^2, so the force is spread over 5200 times the surface area. A valid comparison would be an arrow with a 9mm diameter point; the frontal surface is the same, the mass is much

1376:

You might point out that density is more important than hardness in KE penetrators. Or rather that as speeds increase, hardness basically drops out of the equation. My physics/engineering math isn't quite up to figuring out just how fast that happens, but hardness is a constant while intertial

792:

article. I understand momentun, and viscosity (which, combined with momentum, gives the penetration depth), and energy, and elastic and inelastic collisions. As for temporal cavities, I have yet to see a convincing explanation of exactly what impact they have on wound ballistics, complete with

783:

All else being equal, the higher energy bullet will have to be of lower mass to perform equally to the lower energy one, which means it has a higher initial velocity, and higher retained velocity for most of its travel. Higher velocity gives fluid tissues less time to "flow" out of the bullet's

678:

From the other direction, flechette guns haven't been adopted because while they have phenomenal external ballistics, they pass right through their target with little loss of velocity, and thus have don't transfer sufficient energy to wound (the SCIMTR round being the significant example--it was

648:

The problem with that kind of reasoning is that momentum and energy are "transferred" differently. Momentum is always conserved as momentum. Always. The kinetic energy which "tags along" with the momentum is conserved as KE, but it never exceeds the momentum. Will a bullet with 500 ft-lbs of

578:

would you want to bet your life on a bullet that penetrated to, say, halfway between 6 and 12 inches? I wouldn't. In fact, I'd pick a .22 LR solid over a frangible .357, because that .22 will go in far enough to do vital damage, while that .357 might fail to penetrate a thick layer of colthing

828:

That sounds like the one about the domestic violence incident in which the boyfriend or husband or something shot a woman square in the forehead with a 158 grain .357 magnum semi-jacketed hollowpoint. The bullet went right between the lobes of her brain, splitting them (but inflicting no other

1953:

Here is the image of the multilayer ballistic shield technology, designed circa 2000 for a potential Mars mission and then later for the International Space station. The photo is interesting, would graphically enhance a rather image-poor article, and would also balance the terminal ballistics

1575:

All bullets have the center of pressure behind the center of mass, otherwise they wouldn't fly very well even when spinning. Once the bullet enters another medium with a much higher density the center of pressure shifts dramatically, that's why all fast non-blunt rifle bullets will turn around

1096:

Once rifled muskets were common, a second theory arose which stated that the angular velocity of the bullet is what causes most of the temporary cavitation type damage (exploding watermelons and the like). I'm not sure when this was disproven, but bullets most certainly continue to spin after

860:

using tasers quite a bit now. Lots of energy, but very little momentum. In seriousness, though, the correlation between momentum and penetration is also pretty close to nil, given the linear correlation with mass, and logarithmic correlation with velocity. Halving mass and doubling velocity

2145:

Since there has been no discussion, I checked the deer hunting laws in several US states, and found that they varied wildly. All required center fire ammo, most required a caliber of at least .24, but agreement pretty much ended there. In some states, one could use a (VERY weak) .25 caliber

2040:

Like you say, they're two sides of the same coin. Most states require expanding ammunition for hunting big game, and that is for safety purposes. Hollow points (or fragmenting ammo) are also preferable for self defense in any situation where innocent persons might be nearby, just as smaller

1137:

Well, if you look at the dynamics of a system, the way a piece moves is affected by its momentum and by the forces on it. If the momentum is far greater than the forces on it, then the forces don't make much difference in how it moves. So if you have a sufficiently high-speed collision, the

1039:

He used a custom-made gun which fired .224 bullets from the powder charge of a .50 BMG. At ~4,000 fps, most bullets did not perform very spectacularly, creating about a 1" diameter hole with slight radial tearing. At 5,000 fps and up, however, flat-nosed rounds generated enormous amounts of

608:

This is why dangerous game bullets, which are expected to be used on difficult frontal shots, are either solids or very limited expansion bullets, and whenever possible fired from hugely overpowered guns--you do NOT want to underpenetrate when a Cape Buffalo is trying to mash you into jelly.

1167:

Well, that's one way to put it, but you have to distinguish between random kinetic energy (heat) and bulk kinetic energy (motion). If either one is high enough, the material strength is irrelevant and the thing behaves like a fluid, but it's not really a fluid unless it's heat that does it.

754:

Personally, I keep a Mossberg 500 12 ga. under the bed, under the theory that a whole lotta little 12" deep holes from solid balls are better than one or two bigger holes from a hollow point that may or may not expand if I have to shoot through sheet rock, leather, or any of the myriad other

916:

Energy is the ability to do work--and work is what is required to cut through tissue. Where that energy is applied (i.e. what tissue you cut) also matters, and so the energy, momentum, penetration, and diameter of the bullet must all be sufficient to cut the amount of tissue you want after

667:

No problem. Imagine a hydrofoil type "bullet" made out of 3/4th inch diameter tubing with 1/32nd" thick walls, .5" high. Frontal surface area is 0.0706 in^2, comparable to a .3" wide bullet (so a .29 caliber, if such a thing exists). If it's made of steel, mass is a mere 69.6 grains. It

762:

Buckshot is a great choice for close range stuff. Sounds like you're using #1 shot, since that stuff penetrates in the 12"-13" range. If it's something else, I recommend switching to #1. #4 and #1 exhibited identical penetration through wallboard, while 00 penetrated an extra wall or

1430:

appreciably diffuse to fill a container; it won't flow to conform to the shape of a container; it sits there in a fixed shape until a force acts on it which exceeds its elastic or shear moduli; so solid it must be. It's just modeling clay is deformed much more easily than copper.

1704:

least they were to me). But I will say that the cavitation threshold velocity is based on two shape constants, bullet diameter, and the viscosity and density of the medium being hit. The above figures are for ballistic gelatin. Other media probably have different properties.

1009:

Heat, vibration, noise, deformation. But from what I've seen, most of the difference correlates closer to momentum and pressure differences than to energy differences. In other words, doubling a velocity tends to produce twice as much of an effect, rather than four times as

1853:

While it does not explicitly say so, one assumes that he is speaking with regard to a given caliber--it is obvious that a larger bullet of the same mass and velocity would penetrate less, otherwise "non-expanding" would be irrelevant, and hollow points would be worthless.

1548:

I know nothing about guns or ammunition, but came to this article from the ballistics gel article, which I was reading for fun. The current article is very poorly organized and very technical. I would advocate putting a "This article needs to be edited" tag on the front.

1128:

As a chemist, I have trouble wrapping my mind around how a solid can behave like a fluid. I guess one could argue some kind of non-equilibrium affect, but right now I am not buying this. I will take the liberty of removing the above text unless someone can provide more

1501:"According to Easton, a 400 grain arrow traveling at the glacial speed of 170 feet-per-second has sufficient energy to harvest a mature deer. Heck, many kids bows can easily shoot such a light arrow faster than 170 fps, and I’ve seen such rigs do pass-throughs on deer!" 1040:

tearing, about a 5" diameter hole, though that might have partially due to the solid brass bullet fragmenting at that point. A 5,000 fps pointed bullet, however, generated a very small, puncate entrance wound, but significant tearing deeper in where the bullet tumbled.

1513:

good hollow point) would be hard pressed to penetrate anywhere near 12 inches. Here's where sectional density steps in--to have the same sectional density as our 400 grain, 9mm arrow, the bullet would need to be .11 caliber, a 4x increase in sectional density.

1229:

I know of a much better article than that, which included an animation of the temperature of the "jet" at different times (and at no time did the temperature of the "jet" exceed the melting point of copper), but I've yet to track it down. I'll keep looking.

597:

diameter of the entire meplat, for most of the penetration depth. The 147 gr bullet might generate more temporary cavitation, but that doesn't have much of an effect at lower than 2,000 fps for fragmenting softpoints, or 5,000 fps for nonfragmenting rounds.

982:

It wasn't "real" data, of course. It was data obtained from a slightly flawed (doesn't seem to account for drag differences at different velocities) calculator, which I then graphed myself. It seems pretty darn accurate aside from the drag issue, though.

1049:

I imagine heating damage is going to be minimal. A 230 grain bullet at 5,000 fps has 17,303 joules of energy. A 1" x 1" x 66" rectangular prism of gelatin (1,084.5 cm^3) which captures the entire wound track would be heated by 16 degrees C, assuming that

1029:

That's not the case with living tissue. I have a PDF of an article by Dr. Martin Fackler, on his tests with super hypervelocity bullets in very freshly-killed (before any loss of muscle elasticity or stiffening due to rigor mortis could occur) pig buttock

641:"Energy transfer" is physics. If a bullet enters with velocity X and leaves with velocity Y, then difference in the amount of momentum or energy is the amount of energy that is tranferred to the target, as impulse, heat, tissue damage, or what have you. 966:

than 99.99%. Below 700 fps, correlation drops off rapidly. Because of the correlative properties of the other factors, this equation can be used to calculate the penetration depth of any FMJ or LRN bullet which is shaped the same as .45 hardball.

755:

substances that tend to clog hollow points and prevent them from expanding. (And just in case you think I weasled out on the issue, the backup to that is a .45 ACP loaded with 230 gr. HydroShocks, so I do put more trust in the big and slow school.)

2242:

source on Terminal Ballistics is the FBI. They have stated that almost everything out in the wild is based on myth and wishful thinking. Do you disagree with the FBI's recent report which resulted from 2 years of research on MODERN technology?

1819:

which is the product of velocity times mass. In John Linebaugh's own words, "Velocity is constantly diminishing variable. Bullet weight is constant.", meaning for the hunter, penetration is a function of bullet weight first, and velocity second.

549:

Number four is penetration of the round. For antipersonnel use, the IWBA recommends between 12.5" and 14" on bare gelatin, and 13" to 16" on heavily clothed gelatin. The FBI's guidlines are a more lenient 12" to 18" penetration in all tests.

690:

Actually, flechettes had lousy external ballistics for their intended purpose; combat in dense jungle cover. They worked fine out in the open, but a single leaf, or even a raindrop, was usually sufficient to destabilize them due to their low

1561:

them. For example, if you have just a passing interest, would an "executive summary" at the start of the article, that just hits the basics in broad terms, be helpful? And if so, what sort of things would you like to see in the summary?

1286:

Cool, stuff. But nothing there says that the jet is a solid. That melting point is probably at 1 atm. How does copper behave at 1000 K and 1 million psi? I mean, heck, even the term "jet" itself implies fluidity. I think a link to

1087:

was mostly intact. Similarly, bullets which hit rocks and other objects were heated faster due to the shallower penetration and more rapid energy transformation, thus they splattered even more. This was disproven in the early 1900's.

716:

Beleive, no. Suspect, maybe. I don't think the "hydrostatic shock" people have proven their point, but I think there are a number of cases of instant incapacitation that aren't completely explained by hemorraging and blood pressure

1537:

And as for catching 9mm bullets, sure, but I should warn you that my theory on gunfights is that if you're planning on going to one, the correct course of action is to stay several hundred miles away and use a cruise missle...

1344:

I believe your statement: "under forces and timescales like that, the terms 'solid' and 'liquid' really have no meaning" is true, and therefore the phrase "while still technically in a solid state" is incorrect. I will remove

711:

Do you seriously believe that there's some magical "energy" factor which makes one bullet which expands to X and penetrates Y significantly better than another, lower-energy bullet which also expands to X and penetrates Y?

733:"Oh my god, I've been shot!" is enough to cause many people to faint. It's an extremely well-documented phenomena, that sometimes suspects who are shot in the arm, leg, or even missed outright, often pass out on the spot. 2141:

In 2009, this statement was tagged: "Humans are in roughly the same class as deer sized game, and in most places, the minimum cartridge power required to hunt deer is more than twice that of the average police sidearm."

970:

See above--log approximates the curve (I won't buy the source that gave you 99.99%, real data is NEVER that precise) so there's an infininte number of x^n functions that will approximate it over the given range as well.

153: 938:

Correlation between mass and penetration is directly proportional. Correlation between frontal area and penetration is directly proportional. Correlation between velocity and penetration, however, is logarithmic.

1123:

Contrary to popular belief, the copper cone is not substantially heated, nor melted. Rather, the massive force of the explosion is sufficient that the metal behaves like a fluid while still technically in a solid

2214:

I disagree with your recent edits. Please recall that this is an encyclopedia and not a blog. Stick to incorporating important scientific fact(s) from Reliable (secondary) Sources (preferably scholarly ones) see

773:

expand, always. No, bad guys usually aren't wearing 4 layers of denim, but they can get pretty close. 1 leather or denim layer of coat, 1 inner cloth layer of coat, 1 tee-shirt, and 1 undershirt make 4 layers.

586:

What really determines the hole size is pressure, which is much more a factor of bullet shape than of energy, and it's very possible for a deep penetrating bullet to be efficient enough to crush an equivalent

1152:

When the kinetic energy is high enough that atoms/molecules move around the system (i.e., the particle-particle interactions are not big enough to keep them relatively fixed), then you have a fluid. Right?

1629:. Take that kg / (m * s) and multiply it by velocity / velocity and you get (kg * m / s) / (m^2), which is what I maintain is the base equation for penetration--momentum divided by frontal surface area. 1721:

FWIW, I don't think you can copyright the data or equations, just the formatting; equations might be subject to patent however (since they aren't much different from algorithms, which are patentable).

788:

Yes, I've taken physics, in both college and high school. I wrote, from basic physics and chemistry principles, the internal ballistics simulation software that I used to generate the charts for the

1837:

cartridge could inflict far more damage, mostly because it contained more energy but also because it impacted at a higher rate of speed. The resistance of motion through a liquid rises with speed.

1265:

The melting point of copper is 1356 degrees K, and according to the diagram, most of the copper "jet" is ~1040 degrees K, while the hottest portions, near the center, reach ~1140 degrees K.

2533: 1580:

While it is true that most bullets, even short, fat handgun bullets are backheavy to some degree, not all are, and the ones that are front heavy are by far the most stable. Hollow based

660:

If energy transfer is entirely irrelevant, then you should be able to design a bullet that kicks like a .22 Short and hits like a .44 Mag--but you can't, because wounding requires energy.

1779:

It would be really helpful if some pictures could be posted for the different bullets and their impacts. The lack of a visual aid really takes away from how informative this article is.

1518:

If "a pound of hamburger meat" is removed, that is a permanent cavity, not a temporary cavity. The temp. cavity is the amount the tissue stretches and then rebounds (that's why it's

1605:

doesn't penetrate as far as a 9mm is because the volleyball has 331,662 mm^2 of frontal surface area, compared to 63.8 mm^2, so the force is spread over 5200 times the surface area.

546:

Number three is overall suitability to the purpose. A recoilless rifle is great for taking out medium armor at medium range, but against personnel at point-blank range, indoors...

2122:

seems irrelevant to "the study of the behavior and effects of a projectile when it hits its target." It is also duplicated (often word for word) on other ballistics related pages.

2316:

one is going to read this. The page and the topic have NO importance. There needs to be a rational, an explanation for why this topic is supposed to be important. There is not.

540:

In general, the very most important factor is reliability. If the round misfires every other shot, it's not gonna cut it, no matter how great a round it is when it does go off.

2330:

I agree. I am trimming this article, but retaining the heavy calibre section (for now) since this page refers to "projectiles" (not bullets). Eventually I foresee a Merge with

1907:

Is seemingly self evident and logical however Sanow and Marshall did not see any signficant difference between semi-wadcutter and round-nosed bullets according to Chuck Hawks.

1877:

for a specific purpose. The production of new larger caliber cartridges is rare, but the production of new smaller caliber cartridges is quite common. What does that suggest?

1670:

But rocket science is easy--you get to ignore friction in space, right: :) Actually, I do know of MacPherson's book, though I haven't read it; I put a reference to it in the

1592:

are all very front heavy, and they are the most stable of bullets--Foster slugs are even stable from smoothbore barrels, with the thin, hollow rear of the slug acting like a

147: 2287:

The 1100 edits were not to this page. You object to something, I know not what as you weren't specific. I'm not a mind reader so your general statement has no value to me.

2436: 2432: 2418: 840:

did the first time. Doubling velocity quadruples energy. Did the balloon travel 4 times as far as the first throw, or did it travel closer to 1.5 or 2 times as far?

1572:

of lateral pressure have enough yawing force to overcome the stabilizing effects of the bullet's spin and tumble. Large bore bullets are often too stable to tumble,

2528: 2523: 423: 79: 2518: 413: 297: 44: 2503: 287: 2173:

Looking at energy only does not give a true picture, but it's a far better tool to estimate effectiveness than most of thy myth that is floating around.

800:

That's because temporary cavity is practically irrelevant, as you've guessed. While a jello-block with a huge hole in it filled with red dye certainly

2538: 2513: 1995: 1492:

I found a hand-dandy website that, ironically enough, takes the same view you do--kinetic energy is what matters for penetration. Hers's the link:

389: 637:. "Energy transfer" is pseudoscience. All it is is a buzzword. It does not adequately describe the process by which bullets wound. Not one bit. 85: 263: 2508: 2498: 475: 259: 2404: 2334:

after both articles are trimmed. Since my field is intercontinental ballistics I would appreciate your expertise on the small calibre stuff.

2265:

that you begin citing reliable sources. Since you raised the number of your edits, and after review, I am also concerned that you may have a

1377:

forces increase with speed and density, and I have seen low velocity lead splash off steel while high velocity lead punches right through.

2353: 2123: 917:

penetrating to the depth you want. If any of the 4 elements are inadequate, then the bullet will fail to have the desired terminal effect

30: 380: 320: 2151: 2046: 543:

Number two is accuracy. If you're consistently missing the target, not even a 16" naval gun is going to produce the desired effect.

99: 2414:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1613:

Well, actual research into wound ballistics done by the FBI seems to show the temporary cavity is of little importance. To quote:

250: 227: 104: 20: 168: 1291:

would be relevant, perhaps. At any rate, I still think that the phrase "while still technically in a solid state" is incorrect.

1054:

of the bullet's kinetic energy is converted into heat, and that the specific heat of jello is the same as water (1J/1degC*1gram).

135: 74: 1077:

My understanding of fluid dynamics is that it's actually momentum transfer which causes inelastic, fluid targets to "explode."

202: 1191:

fixed then you have a solid, regardless of the velocity of the system's center of mass. I.e., a slug of lead traveling at 99

1998:, image S99-05362, "Computer Generated Still -- Cutaway of the TransHab Module shell showing the various layers," 2001-08-30 793:

charts, extrapolations of temporal cavity vs. hemorraging speed, etc. that will let me put any trust in the temporal cavity.

65: 2147: 2042: 1195:

is still solid. Now if that solid slug hits something, I am guessing neither it, nor its target will be solid for long.

501: 2479: 537:

Expanded diameter is hardly meaningless, because it is a very large factor in both penetration and wounding ability.

129: 1493: 109: 2435:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

125: 2357: 2127: 1249:

Oh. Oops. That article is linked to right at the end of the terminal ballistics article, though not cited.

208: 190: 2470: 2396: 2321: 2292: 2247: 2204: 2178: 2108: 1882: 679:

designed to cut a wide path through the target--and because if that, it slows more or stops in the target).

258:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the

175: 2405:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050326052053/http://pegasus.me.jhu.edu/~molinari/Projects/Shape/SLIDE-1.html

2392: 2269:

concerning guns and ammo which is reflected in your choice of sources. There is nothing really new in the

1451:"The current NATO 5.56 mm SS109 bullet does not use a steel core to improve penetration, but a heavier 69 861:

results in reduced penetration, while doubling mass and halving velocity results in increased penetration.

55: 2454:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2442: 388:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2395:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1550: 70: 2339: 2306: 2278: 2228: 2199:

Both sections should be removed from here, possibly moved to relevant pages elsewhere or standalone.

1408:'At any rate, I still think that the phrase "while still technically in a solid state" is incorrect.' 701:

because the dagger makes more efficient use of pressure, spreading it out along a wide cutting edge.

342: 883:

Momentum on its own isn't that great, either, especially when pressure is insufficient to penetrate.

2388: 2196:

The same is true of hypervelocity, which is a range of research primarily related to space travel.

1911: 805:

Nonfragmenting bullets, however, don't actually tear tissue until their velocity exceeds 5,000 fps.

789: 161: 24: 2408: 1745: 1740:

mass, and a logarithmic equation involving the two threshold velocities and the striking velocity.

1705: 1431: 1266: 1250: 1231: 1098: 1055: 1011: 987: 957: 929: 906: 884: 862: 830: 806: 774: 744: 702: 669: 650: 598: 568: 2317: 2288: 2243: 2200: 2174: 2104: 2028: 1915: 1878: 372: 141: 2439:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1635:

the way, while spitzer bullets will penetrate deeper since they accelerate the tissue much less.

1581: 2455: 984: 1961: 1671: 1456: 1214: 51: 2220: 1487:

higher and the velocity much lower which will cause a great disparity in energy and momentum.

633:

For those of you in the energy transfer crowd, I strongly recommend reading "my" article on

2462: 2266: 1948:

Cut-away view of the Transhab multi-layer, space debris and micrometeroid ballistic-shield.

845:

lasers--zero momentum and the maximum amount of energy allowable by physics as we know it.

466: 2335: 2302: 2274: 2224: 1791:

itt's not too hard. There are instructions on the web, if anyone want's to volunteer...

1452: 1002:

the block and that energy must go SOMEWHERE, if you aren't to violate the laws of physics.

2216: 1908: 928:

We basically agree on this, it's just you're saying it's ft-lbs, and I'm saying it's PSI.

1496:

I'll takes some choice quotes from there and see what we can do. A quote from the site:

2421:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2349: 2331: 1944: 1141:

This isn't a great answer. Let's see if someone comes by with a better explanation. --

634: 356: 314: 2461:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2428: 1482:

function of mass times velocity divided by the frontal surface area. The reason said

2492: 2024: 1973: 1935: 1811: 1523: 1169: 1142: 328: 1855: 1792: 1763: 1723: 1675: 1646: 1617: 1562: 1539: 1464: 1378: 1316: 1067: 972: 945: 918: 846: 818: 680: 610: 531: 2193:

The large caliber section is about military cannon and has no purpose being here.

1494:

http://www.bowsite.com/bowsite/features/practical_bowhunter/penetration/index.cfm

1744:

like a fluid than a solid, when penetrating ballistic projectiles are involved.

1593: 1589: 1346: 1292: 1196: 1153: 1130: 385: 2352:, that page contains way too many could's and might's to be in an encyclopedia. 893:

If we ignore energy, then they should penetrate the same amount, but the don't.

2484: 2427:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2361: 2343: 2325: 2310: 2296: 2282: 2251: 2232: 2208: 2182: 2155: 2131: 2112: 2050: 2032: 2012: 1977: 1939: 1919: 1886: 1858: 1795: 1766: 1748: 1726: 1708: 1678: 1659:

so I have very high confidence in his equations. Example velocity thresholds:

1649: 1602: 1565: 1553: 1542: 1483: 1467: 1434: 1381: 1319: 1269: 1234: 452: 362: 1187:

If the particle-particle interactions are large enough to keep the particles

1626: 242: 221: 2301:

My apologies. I misunderstood you to be the author of this original essay.

1448:

I'm going to change the statement made by 217.43.6.65, which is a follows:

484: 335: 1969: 1931: 1288: 255: 1576:

eventually unless they expand. Some just take a lot longer than others.

1597:

round to prevent tumbling, and thus reduce the lethality of the bullet.

817:

ballistics to heart unless you see a gob of information to back it up.

1957:

I support adding it to the Hypervelocity terminal ballistics section.

1585: 1107:

I should start an "energy transfer" page. Actually, I think I will!

724:

Those are very easy to explain. Psychological shock, and CNS trauma.

1903:

The simplest maximum disruption bullet is one with a wide, flat tip.

1119:

Does anyone have any references to back up the following assertion?

1954:

discussion beyond mere earth-fired and earth-captured projectiles.

1943: 1097:

penetration, usually at almost the same RPM as when they entered.

2409:

http://pegasus.me.jhu.edu/~molinari/Projects/Shape/SLIDE-1.html

1251:

http://pegasus.me.jhu.edu/~molinari/Projects/Shape/SLIDE-1.html

997:

to energy dump" or similar unreasoned are wholly insufficient.

184: 15: 985:

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Penetration_Calculator_2.html

483: 465: 460:

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

451: 2273:

of wound ballistics which has not been known for 70 years.

1215:

http://www.logwell.com/tech/shot/perforator_life_cycle.html

2399:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

871:

Actual correlation between energy and penetration is nil.

1968:) or somewhere on one of th HobbySpace related links. 1909:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/beginners_stopping_power.htm

160: 1814:

which contains the following empirical observations:

2534:

Knowledge (XXG) requested photographs of spaceflight

2189:

Off topic sections are unneeded and belong elsewhere

1455:

bullet. This heavier bullet results in an increased

384:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 254:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2431:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1960:By the way, I read in other sources yesterday that 434: 174: 1812:http://www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=6 2078:than .22 Long Rifle Hollow Point and always has. 1700:.45 caliber 230 grain roundnose bullet - 482 f/s 1694:.177 caliber 7.9 grain pointed pellet - 1017 f/s 1618:http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2417:This message was posted before February 2018. 554:fps, which gives superior penetration of 16"? 8: 630:Part deux (not a response to previous post) 474:This article has been marked as needing an 188: 2387:I have just modified one external link on 2013:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg 1697:.177 caliber 7.9 grain wadcutter - 568 f/s 431: 309: 216: 1988: 398:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Spaceflight 311: 218: 2529:Spaceflight articles needing infoboxes 2524:Spaceflight articles needing attention 2096:what the FBI said about this and why. 7: 378:This article is within the scope of 272:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Firearms 248:This article is within the scope of 2519:Mid-importance spaceflight articles 2011:How is this video unconstructive?: 1996:International Space Station Imagery 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 14: 2504:High-importance Firearms articles 2391:. Please take a moment to review 1966:An Interview with Constance Adams 1925:Hypervelocity terminal ballistics 1111:Large caliber terminal ballistics 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 2539:WikiProject Spaceflight articles 2514:Start-Class spaceflight articles 900:Correction: if we ignore energy 492:An editor has requested that an 401:Template:WikiProject Spaceflight 365: 355: 341: 334: 327: 313: 241: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 1691:.177 caliber steel bb - 777 f/s 418:This article has been rated as 292:This article has been rated as 1810:Just ran across this article: 1: 2509:WikiProject Firearms articles 2499:Start-Class Firearms articles 2485:10:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC) 2183:13:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC) 2113:16:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC) 1920:20:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC) 1899:The statement in the article 1887:17:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC) 1767:17:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 1749:16:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 1727:17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 1709:16:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 1679:17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 1650:06:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 392:and see a list of open tasks. 275:Template:WikiProject Firearms 42:Put new text under old text. 2156:20:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC) 2051:20:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC) 1859:03:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 1806:Momentum, momentum, momentum 1796:16:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC) 1566:20:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 1554:19:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 1543:23:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 956:increased pressure and drag. 2362:08:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC) 1978:23:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 1940:04:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 2555: 2448:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2384:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2344:15:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC) 2326:12:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC) 2311:12:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC) 2297:06:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC) 2283:05:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC) 2252:02:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC) 2233:20:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC) 2209:22:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC) 2137:A 7 year old "dubious" tag 2132:06:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC) 424:project's importance scale 298:project's importance scale 2033:13:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC) 1477:(hard obstacles or not?) 1468:15:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 491: 473: 459: 430: 417: 350: 291: 236: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2348:Please don't merge with 2148:Poindexter Propellerhead 2118:section on large caliber 2043:Poindexter Propellerhead 1459:improving penetration." 1172:19:47, May 3, 2005 (UTC) 1145:00:08, May 3, 2005 (UTC) 1133:23:24, 2005 May 2 (UTC) 534:18:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2380:External links modified 1435:03:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC) 1382:19:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC) 1349:18:42, 2005 May 4 (UTC) 1320:18:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC) 1295:03:27, 2005 May 4 (UTC) 1270:23:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC) 1235:23:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC) 1199:03:27, 2005 May 4 (UTC) 1156:16:54, 2005 May 3 (UTC) 1101:19:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1070:17:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1058:19:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 1014:19:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 990:19:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 975:17:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 948:17:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 932:19:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 921:17:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 909:19:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 865:19:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 849:17:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 833:19:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 821:17:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 809:19:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 777:19:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 747:19:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 705:19:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 683:17:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 653:19:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 613:17:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 601:19:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 571:19:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) 381:WikiProject Spaceflight 1949: 856:Well, police agencies 488: 470: 456: 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 1947: 626:-- more from Feb 2005 523:early 2005 discussion 487: 469: 455: 201:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 100:Neutral point of view 2429:regular verification 404:spaceflight articles 251:WikiProject Firearms 105:No original research 2419:After February 2018 2389:Terminal ballistics 905:velocity increases. 790:internal ballistics 25:Terminal ballistics 2473:InternetArchiveBot 2424:InternetArchiveBot 1950: 1895:Flat point bullets 1601:2.The reason said 489: 471: 457: 373:Spaceflight portal 262:and see a list of 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 2449: 1962:Bigelow Aerospace 1672:ballistic gelatin 1588:, and especially 1457:sectional density 520: 519: 516: 515: 512: 511: 508: 507: 435:More information: 308: 307: 304: 303: 278:Firearms articles 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2546: 2483: 2474: 2447: 2446: 2425: 1999: 1993: 504:to this article. 442: 432: 406: 405: 402: 399: 396: 375: 370: 369: 368: 359: 352: 351: 346: 345: 344: 339: 338: 337: 332: 331: 330: 325: 317: 310: 280: 279: 276: 273: 270: 245: 238: 237: 232: 224: 217: 200: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2554: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2489: 2488: 2477: 2472: 2440: 2433:have permission 2423: 2397:this simple FaQ 2382: 2191: 2139: 2120: 2020: 2009: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1994: 1990: 1927: 1897: 1808: 1556:Reuben Grinbeg 1113: 628: 620:Energy transfer 525: 440: 403: 400: 397: 394: 393: 371: 366: 364: 340: 333: 326: 323: 294:High-importance 277: 274: 271: 268: 267: 231:High‑importance 230: 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2552: 2550: 2542: 2541: 2536: 2531: 2526: 2521: 2516: 2511: 2506: 2501: 2491: 2490: 2467: 2466: 2459: 2412: 2411: 2403:Added archive 2381: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2354:207.191.12.134 2350:stopping power 2346: 2332:Stopping Power 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2236: 2235: 2190: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2170: 2169: 2164: 2163: 2138: 2135: 2124:207.191.12.134 2119: 2116: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2093: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2019: 2016: 2008: 2005: 2001: 2000: 1987: 1986: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1958: 1955: 1926: 1923: 1905: 1904: 1896: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1821: 1820: 1807: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1741: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1692: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1653: 1652: 1637: 1636: 1631: 1630: 1621: 1620: 1614: 1599: 1598: 1584:, most airgun 1569: 1568: 1546: 1545: 1534: 1533: 1528: 1527: 1515: 1514: 1509: 1508: 1503: 1502: 1498: 1497: 1489: 1488: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1147: 1146: 1139: 1126: 1125: 1112: 1109: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1072: 1071: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1024: 1023: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1004: 1003: 994: 993: 992: 991: 977: 976: 963: 962: 961: 960: 950: 949: 936: 935: 934: 933: 923: 922: 913: 912: 911: 910: 895: 894: 890: 889: 888: 887: 878: 877: 869: 868: 867: 866: 851: 850: 837: 836: 835: 834: 823: 822: 813: 812: 811: 810: 795: 794: 781: 780: 779: 778: 767: 766: 765: 764: 757: 756: 751: 750: 749: 748: 737: 736: 735: 734: 728: 727: 726: 725: 719: 718: 709: 708: 707: 706: 695: 694: 693: 692: 685: 684: 675: 674: 673: 672: 662: 661: 657: 656: 655: 654: 643: 642: 635:stopping power 627: 624:Stopping power 616: 615: 614: 605: 604: 603: 602: 591: 590: 589: 588: 581: 580: 575: 574: 573: 572: 561: 560: 524: 521: 518: 517: 514: 513: 510: 509: 506: 505: 490: 480: 479: 472: 462: 461: 458: 448: 447: 445: 443: 437: 436: 428: 427: 420:Mid-importance 416: 410: 409: 407: 390:the discussion 377: 376: 360: 348: 347: 324:Mid‑importance 318: 306: 305: 302: 301: 290: 284: 283: 281: 246: 234: 233: 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2551: 2540: 2537: 2535: 2532: 2530: 2527: 2525: 2522: 2520: 2517: 2515: 2512: 2510: 2507: 2505: 2502: 2500: 2497: 2496: 2494: 2487: 2486: 2481: 2476: 2475: 2464: 2460: 2457: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2444: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2420: 2415: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2385: 2379: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2318:Digitallymade 2314: 2313: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2289:Digitallymade 2286: 2285: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2244:Digitallymade 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2201:Digitallymade 2197: 2194: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2175:Digitallymade 2172: 2171: 2166: 2165: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2143: 2136: 2134: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2117: 2115: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2105:Digitallymade 2094: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2018:Hollow points 2017: 2015: 2014: 2006: 1997: 1992: 1989: 1985: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1956: 1952: 1951: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1924: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1910: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1894: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1879:Digitallymade 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1857: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1813: 1805: 1797: 1794: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1768: 1765: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1750: 1747: 1742: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1728: 1725: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1710: 1707: 1702: 1699: 1696: 1693: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1680: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1651: 1648: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1633: 1632: 1628: 1623: 1622: 1619: 1615: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1606: 1604: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1573: 1567: 1564: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1555: 1552: 1544: 1541: 1536: 1535: 1530: 1529: 1525: 1524:Harry Houdini 1521: 1517: 1516: 1511: 1510: 1505: 1504: 1500: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1490: 1485: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1469: 1466: 1460: 1458: 1454: 1449: 1436: 1433: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1383: 1380: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1348: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1321: 1318: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1294: 1290: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1271: 1268: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1252: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1236: 1233: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1216: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1171: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1155: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1132: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1117: 1110: 1108: 1100: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1069: 1066:the target. 1064: 1063: 1057: 1053: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1020: 1019: 1013: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1000: 999: 998: 989: 986: 981: 980: 979: 978: 974: 969: 968: 967: 959: 954: 953: 952: 951: 947: 942: 941: 940: 931: 927: 926: 925: 924: 920: 915: 914: 908: 903: 899: 898: 897: 896: 892: 891: 886: 882: 881: 880: 879: 874: 873: 872: 864: 859: 855: 854: 853: 852: 848: 843: 842: 841: 832: 827: 826: 825: 824: 820: 815: 814: 808: 803: 799: 798: 797: 796: 791: 787: 786: 785: 776: 771: 770: 769: 768: 761: 760: 759: 758: 753: 752: 746: 741: 740: 739: 738: 732: 731: 730: 729: 723: 722: 721: 720: 715: 714: 713: 704: 699: 698: 697: 696: 689: 688: 687: 686: 682: 677: 676: 671: 666: 665: 664: 663: 659: 658: 652: 647: 646: 645: 644: 640: 639: 638: 636: 631: 625: 621: 617: 612: 607: 606: 600: 595: 594: 593: 592: 585: 584: 583: 582: 577: 576: 570: 565: 564: 563: 562: 557: 556: 555: 551: 547: 544: 541: 538: 535: 533: 529: 522: 503: 499: 495: 486: 482: 481: 477: 468: 464: 463: 454: 450: 449: 446: 444: 439: 438: 433: 429: 425: 421: 415: 412: 411: 408: 391: 387: 383: 382: 374: 363: 361: 358: 354: 353: 349: 322: 319: 316: 312: 299: 295: 289: 286: 285: 282: 265: 261: 257: 253: 252: 247: 244: 240: 239: 235: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 210: 204: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2471: 2468: 2443:source check 2422: 2416: 2413: 2386: 2383: 2270: 2198: 2195: 2192: 2144: 2140: 2121: 2103: 2021: 2010: 1991: 1983: 1965: 1928: 1906: 1898: 1852: 1809: 1638: 1607: 1600: 1590:Foster slugs 1574: 1570: 1551:67.9.131.227 1547: 1519: 1475: 1471: 1461: 1450: 1447: 1192: 1188: 1129:information. 1127: 1118: 1114: 1106: 1051: 995: 964: 937: 901: 870: 857: 838: 801: 782: 710: 632: 629: 623: 619: 618:Part deux: 552: 548: 545: 542: 539: 536: 530: 526: 497: 493: 419: 379: 293: 249: 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 1594:shuttlecock 395:Spaceflight 386:spaceflight 321:Spaceflight 199:Start-class 148:free images 31:not a forum 2493:Categories 2480:Report bug 2336:Inlinetext 2303:Inlinetext 2275:Inlinetext 2225:Inlinetext 1984:References 1674:article. 1603:volleyball 1582:wadcutters 1484:volleyball 1189:relatively 498:photograph 264:open tasks 260:discussion 2463:this tool 2456:this tool 1627:viscosity 1520:temporary 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2469:Cheers.— 2025:Abitslow 2007:Question 1912:Halconen 1289:rheology 876:900 fps. 269:Firearms 256:firearms 228:Firearms 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2393:my edit 2271:science 2221:WP:NPOV 1746:Arrkhal 1706:Arrkhal 1640:or so. 1586:pellets 1432:Arrkhal 1267:Arrkhal 1232:Arrkhal 1099:Arrkhal 1056:Arrkhal 1030:tissue. 1012:Arrkhal 988:Arrkhal 958:Arrkhal 930:Arrkhal 907:Arrkhal 885:Arrkhal 863:Arrkhal 831:Arrkhal 807:Arrkhal 775:Arrkhal 745:Arrkhal 703:Arrkhal 670:Arrkhal 651:Arrkhal 599:Arrkhal 569:Arrkhal 476:infobox 422:on the 296:on the 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2267:WP:COI 1347:Rangek 1293:Rangek 1197:Rangek 1170:Andrew 1154:Rangek 1143:Andrew 1131:Rangek 1124:state. 205:scale. 126:Google 2217:WP:RS 1453:grain 1010:much. 802:looks 717:loss. 691:mass. 587:hole. 502:added 494:image 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2358:talk 2340:talk 2322:talk 2307:talk 2293:talk 2279:talk 2248:talk 2229:talk 2205:talk 2179:talk 2152:talk 2128:talk 2109:talk 2047:talk 2029:talk 1974:talk 1936:talk 1916:talk 1883:talk 1856:scot 1793:scot 1764:scot 1724:scot 1676:scot 1647:scot 1563:scot 1540:scot 1465:scot 1379:scot 1317:scot 1068:scot 1052:100% 973:scot 946:scot 919:scot 847:scot 819:scot 763:two. 681:scot 622:vs. 611:scot 532:scot 288:High 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 2437:RfC 2407:to 1970:N2e 1932:N2e 1345:it. 902:and 858:are 500:be 496:or 414:Mid 176:TWL 2495:: 2450:. 2445:}} 2441:{{ 2360:) 2342:) 2324:) 2309:) 2295:) 2281:) 2250:) 2231:) 2223:. 2207:) 2181:) 2154:) 2130:) 2111:) 2049:) 2031:) 1976:) 1938:) 1918:) 1885:) 1168:-- 441:/ 156:) 54:; 2482:) 2478:( 2465:. 2458:. 2356:( 2338:( 2320:( 2305:( 2291:( 2277:( 2246:( 2227:( 2219:, 2203:( 2177:( 2150:( 2126:( 2107:( 2045:( 2027:( 1972:( 1934:( 1914:( 1881:( 1193:c 478:. 426:. 300:. 266:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index