Knock Down Power of the 1860 Army
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 окт 2021
- After taking velocities of both the round ball and conical bullet during the 3rd 1860 Army video, all the necessary values where available to determine foot pounds of energy. According to self-defense experts, the minimal bullet energy needed for a adequate self-defense arm is 220 foot pounds. This video not only compares bullet energy of a heavier conical bullet to that of a lighter round ball, but also indicates either load meets the minimum standard. Let's see how this applies to historical information.
I think you make a good point about penetration--the formula for kinetic energy implies all the energy is transmitted to the target, but the better penetration of conical bullets means some of it is lost if the bullet leaves the body.
There is, however, another factor to consider. When most people do this test, they usually use comparable charges with round balls and conicals. This may not reflect the practice of the time, however. For example, the military issued Johnston and Dow cartridges had 25 grains of powder, but if we read Colt's loading instructions for loose powder and ball he says to fill the chamber then set the ball on top and ram it home, and the powder will compress enough to let the ball fit. This technique will allow a lot more than 25 grains of powder into the chamber--more like 35. This is echoed in Whittaker's "Volunteer Cavalry Instructions" from 1871 where he says: "For loading Colt's revolvers a powder-flask and bullets are much better than compressed cartridges. The latter have hardly any strength. I have seen pistols burst in firing a second shot from their use. The first bullet stuck in the barrel midway, the powder not being strong enough to expel it fully. The second burst the pistol" (p.14). From this, is seems quite possible that the round ball would have had even *more* velocity than most people get in their results, and remember that in the formula for K.E velocity is far more important than mass since the K.E. increases as 1/2 of the mass but as the *square* of the velocity. When combined with the penetration issue you raised, I think this clearly explains Keith's comments.
Thank you. I did indeed have more powder under the round ball and it contributed to the higher velocity. Your interpretation of the formula is spot on - velocity is squared and explains why a small modern bullet with little mass can have so much energy for big game hunting. It's going 3000 fps.
What a pleasure it is to see an intelligent use of information gained from your practical tests, I was surprised to see how close the energy was for these two projectiles, I would have thought the conical ,although traveling slower, would have produced a higher energy than it did, many thanks for posting this video! Chris B.
Excellent video!! Answered questions I have had for a long time. Thank you.
Very interesting. I love BP but use Pyrodex P in my cap and ball revolvers exclusively. I use the eras gone Johnson and Dow bullet with 25 grains Pyrodex P.
Excellent video, and informative. Great baseline. I found with Pyrodex I get closer to 45 acp stats.
You should make the switch to black powder. I used to use Pyrodex P but since using black powder I will never go back. The black powder ignites more reliably, quicker and cleans up easier.
I agree. But sometimes there is no choice. Black powder is getting very hard to find and few places online carry it anymore. I just received some via FedEx and the hazard fee was $50 plus shipping. Still, if you can get it, do. Todd
In a comment on your other video, I mentioned the book "Stopping Power" by Evan Marshall and Edwin Sanow. They wrote 3 books evaluating actual field performance from real life defensive shootings to develop a theory and formulas for predicting the effectiveness of bullets, cartridges, and loads. In their last book, there is a chapter on cap&ball revolvers. Their measurements and calculations mostly match your own (840 ft/s on 30gr 3F w/ 141gr round ball, 726 ft/s on 25gr 3F w/ 200gr conical).
You mention 300ft/lbs of energy as being "optimal" for self defense. To put the numbers in perspective, an 88 gr JHP 380 ACP only generates about 196 ft-lbs. They recorded a higher velocity (935 ft/s) for their 1860 Army using 35 gr of 3F to propel a round 141gr ball, generating 274 ft-lbs, only slightly less than a modern 44 Special 200gr lead HP (292 ft-lbs). For the Ruger Old Army (40gr 3F, 141gr ball) they calculated 333 ft-lbs, for the Colt Dragoon (50gr 3F, 141gr ball) 437 ft-lbs, and for the Colt Walker (60gr 3F, 141gr ball) 519 ft-lbs. The modern 41 Magnum (175gr JHP) only produces 608 ft-lbs. As you proved, these guns are not only capable, they have impressive power even before considering projectile expansion.
This is great stuff. Thanks for taking the time to share this info. I'm planning to test a few more guns and we'll see if they continue to match up. Todd
Nice video, very technically informative !!
Many thanks.
Great video! Just a tip for the future, you don't have to convert everything into metric. The English unit of mass is the slug which is equal to 32.2 lbs on earth. Once you have the bullet weight in lbs, divide that by 32.2 to get slugs, then plug that into the kinetic energy equation with velocity in ft/s. This will give you slugs-ft^2/s^2, which simplifies into ft-lb which is the unit for energy. Most people have never heard of the slug though haha
Thanks Ethan, I have not heard of the term "slug" for weight. It makes me wonder if the term is responsible for sometimes referring to a bullet as a slug. Thanks to tips from video watchers, I have simplified the calculations significantly. Todd
My favorite imperial unit is the Erg.
Thanks!! I always wanted to know that. I have a 1860 Army revolver.
Excellent work. The next step in investigating stopping power of the 1860 Army would involve emphatically seeing what it does on the intended target…a meat target of some kind. The low #’s may be moot if the performance on the meat target is respectable. Remember, the #’s do not reflect what lead in its various configurations are capable of on the intended target medium. That dynamic must be tested & observed before final conclusions may be made.
The US Army conducted many such tests in the 1800s. Much of that information that the Army made reports on are still available today. Also, Colt made many such experiments and testing and much of that can be found in Colts historical records library in Connecticut today. Very good reading.
What an insightful explainatary video.
The clear articulate way you present the Formulas for calculation of the power factors, is amongst the best discriptive done!
I wanted to develop the most capable, effective projectiles for Black Powder cap&ball percussion revolvers for effectively quickly putting down dangerous apex preditorial animals, like Bears and Wild Boars etc.
So I did my research& development were I discovered that if I combine the aspects of the Round Ball face into a elongated conical with a Flat Nose, I would have the best attributes of both in in one effective unit.I reverse engineered both modern conical round nose bullet designs along with the round ball spirol momentium metplat to come up with what has been proven to be a very effective' capable projectile series known as the Kaido Ojamaa-VKV Universal RFN Bullets.
With good stout loaded "Well Regulated" Steel Framed percussion revolvers have been tested and achieved over 500 Foot Pounds of Energy that also stays on it's Target path without diversion. My Universal RFN Bullets, have been used in various percussion revolvers to take a 2.200 enradged Bull to Wild Boar, Deer, Turkey. I currently offer custom produced six cavity molds to hand cast my Universal RFN Bullets. Contact is; kaido93@hotmail.com
Impressive. And some people think black powder incapable. Thanks for watching, Todd
Great! Thanks!
I know a guy that got shot in the shin with a “58 Army loaded with RB. It shattered his tibia into tiny fragments and left a hole you could literally drop a golfball in. His leg had to be repaired with a rod and plates with screws.
I bet. It would have been an amputation in the Civil War. It's a horrible thing to happen, thanks for sharing the story. Todd
I saw a guy get shot in the same place with a 30-30 winchester in a hunting accident. The results were the same. The guy lived, and kept his leg.
Makes you really appreciate modern medicine. Todd
Interesting way to get the energy, I never would’ve thought of doing it that way, i’ve done a little research on black powder and I’ve noticed a lot of the older pistol powder was pretty fine, it looks about as fine as our modern day 4F powder, I wonder if that would give you more velocity and energy, excellent video
Using 4F powder would probably accelerate velocities, but I've seen groups open up enough to question if you could hit anything at moderate range with too high a velocity. I'll do a video on this soon. Todd
@@frontierwesternheritage1356 thank you, I look forward to see it
Basic high school physical science! Nice work.
Seems kind of superfluous to convert velocity given in feet per second into the metric system convert to joules and then rotate it back to pound feet. I just go f=ma, a is vel squared. Constant of 450,240 so: 855x855x143gr/450,240 or 232 ft lbs. pretty straight forward Without moving the units back-and-forth just keeping them in grains and feet per second and using the mathematical constant I show.
Thanks Roddo, I had no idea there was a constant denominator. How was that determined? But it seems to work. It must be a one-step factor that makes the equation work with non-metric measurements. I'm curious about the origins of this now. Thanks for the info! Todd
Sure thing. The 450240 is mathematically derived simply through conversion of units. While the math here does not lend itself to an easy format as a RUclips reply suffice to say it is the formula Output for the conversions which are themselves a constant such as 7000 grains equals 1 pound, 454 g equals 1 pound, ; and where speed is equal to distance divided by time (mph for example) 5280 ft. with denominators of 60 sec/min and 60 min/hr. Makes more sense all written out with the conversion of units that cancel but since (American) ballistics still seem to want to use feet per second and grain weight of bullets simply squaring the published velocity in feet per second times the grain weight of the projectile and dividing it by the 450,240 will always get you an accurate number. Good video and thank you for making it. For the record I prefer to work exclusively in the metric system myself :)
Great video. I would have thought there would have been more energy than what you found. I am still thinking it would be no fun to be tagged by either round.
Great Granddad was well armed.
It’s ffg not fffg powder or pydrodex fffg and pyrodex up the power a little also goex isn’t the most energy dense stuff it’s better than graf and sons but not as some others like shutzen
I'm enjoying your videos. Will you be doing the same velocity & energy comparison with the .36 Navy ?
I could. But I was thinking about comparing the 45 Colt to the 44-40 next. Both were highly popular calibers during the Old West and I'd like to see if there was a significant difference between the two. Since Winchester chambered their 1873 in 44-40, I wonder if there is a trade off for the convenience of carrying only one type of ammo.
Enjoyed the video. Next time, you can keep the bullet weight in grains, and the muzzle velocity in feet per second. Just take the muzzle velocity times itself, then multiply by the bullet weight, then divide the product by 450,240 and that will give you the kinetic energy in foot pounds.
Exactly. He was sure taking the long way around the park.
energy is important, but flat trajectory makes the difference between a hit and a miss. i prefer round ball in open top revolvers.
very interesting data, Loved the video, But what about different powder charges?
That's a tradeoff from ball to conical. The conical takes more room in the chamber thus leaving less room for powder. I loaded them both heavy respective to the projectile. Great question. Thanks for watching. Todd
Old Army rating for FPE to be fatal at 39 ft lbs now it's around 58 ft lbs.
Good to know. Thanks, Todd
Plink with round ball hunt with conical
All every well done Sir. - I find it interesting to note that 'militarily' a lower energy figure of 60 ft/lbs (81J) is observed capable of disabling an opponent.. "The size of shrapnel balls in World War I was based on two considerations. One was the premise that a projectile energy of about 60 foot-pounds force (81 J) was required to disable an enemy soldier."
This is quoted from a page discussing SHRAPNEL on Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrapnel_shell
Contraversial I know, but that lower impacting energy is achieved even by some .22" Short R/F Loadings so there is no doubt that both loadings of the 44 cap'n'ball are fully effective & deadly eh. Cheers
Thanks Martin, I agree that energy only tells a part of the story. The 1860 Army is, without a doubt, a combat proven arm. Thanks for watching, Todd
I’m so glad I chose a profession that didn’t involve math; so many numbers…
Great video & math lesson in one!
I wonder if the round ball isn't more stabile at farther distance due to less tendency to "paperclip", or fly end-over-end into the target? I'm thinking I'd prefer the round ball, but willing to be wrong, especially when remembering that Lewis&Clark claimed it took 9 musket balls to kill a Grizzly bear!
Thanks Johnny, that's why they said, "We have satisfied our curiosity with this animal." Thanks for watching and commenting. Todd
I have a Lyman mold that makes a semi wad cutter w/ a hollow base @145 gr.
Aaaaaand the TKO goes up from 7.8 to 10.2.
instant subscriber just based on you intro lol
Thank you. Good to have you join us. Todd
Please do the same analysis for the .36. It is an underestimated round and you would be one of the first to give it a fair ballistic test! I would request 28 grains for round ball and 21 for conical. Those are my carry rounds.
Okay, you talked me into it. Still want to see the 45 Colt and 44-40 head to head. I might do that one first.
@@frontierwesternheritage1356 Thanks for the fantastic content!
Yep, it's like a 32 S&W long and the 32 20 is better
I know I can put more powder behind a round ball than a conical. I have to keep my powder charge in my paper cartridges behind the Eras gone 44 conical to 20gr of fffg in order to get the bullet nose to seat deep enough in the cylinder to clear the barrel. I can load 30gr behind a round ball in my 1860 Army revolvers.
Good video. Up it to FFF Goex or even Swiss and see how much of a difference that makes
Thanks for watching. I'll continue some trials this summer to compare powders. Todd
@@frontierwesternheritage1356 Pyrodex bro. Maybe even Blackhorn 209 ....
Can't do it. I'm a purist. Using substitute black powder is like giving the love of your life a cubic zirconia ring! It seems to make sense, but it's just not the same. If black powder availability doesn't get any better, I might have to eat my words. Thanks for letting me give you a hard time, Todd
chapeau for converting all to continental mesirments. (metric) Thanks.
Thanks Guy, I have since been tipped off to a better formula that does not require all the conversions. Keep watching and thank you. Todd
Hi, thanks for a very interesting video, I can see you were using FFg Goex but can you please tell me the powder load ? thanks.
Sorry Chris, Maybe I didn't mention it. 30 grains for the round ball and 25 grains for the conical. Todd
...is actually negligible, just like most firearms. People fall down out of shock, because you damaged an important limb, or because they think they're supposed to from the movies. Bullets alone don't send you flying twenty feet back, shotguns included. Period.
Have had one for 22 years great little shooter, lots of fun after the smoke clears. Hard to come by a real Colt most are like mine replicas.
One question: what was the powder charge you used with the rb's and conicals, respectively? I've always had the impression that velocity of the ball would be around 1000fps with 40gr of powder, and conicals in the 800 - 900fps range with about 30gr of bp. Maybe I was thinking of another revolver, like the 1858 Remington, though, I'm not sure.
Your comparison would be more useful if you specified the charges used in each case.
Thanks Rabitsky, I didn't say? It was 35 grains 2f with a round ball and 30 grains conical. I hope I'm remembering that right. Thanks for watching, Todd
What charge of propellent in grains are you loading? Same with both projectiles? The typical 30 grain battlefield load? Do you get better velocity with 3F?
E = mv^2/450437. Where m is mass in grains, v is velocity in f/s, E is the result in ftlbs. The magic number is 2*gc*7000. The 7000 is to get grains to pounds, gc is the gravitational constant of roughly 32.174.
Thanks Anthony, I've had several folks set me on the right path with the foot pounds formula. Much easier. I'm no longer doing all the conversions. I appreciate the advice. Thanks for watching, Todd
Check out video by kido fujioma on semiwadcutter bullet style made specifically for hunting...ive shot them...theyre a heeled 230 grain bulletwith a wide flat metplate loaxed over 35 grains of tripple7.,...way hot load....backed down to 30 grains..this load is managable but rough on 1860 pietta ..strain onwedge and under lug for loading lever
It sounds like you are.loading a little lite. I would also like to see a gel test. Thank you.
I'll get to a gel test one day. I'd like to see penetration results too. Thanks for watching. Todd
*@**6:00** My 🧠!!!!*
I appreciate your efforts however none of this matters without knowing the powder charge. And since the powder is variable the energy will be different and was that an 8" barrel? Barrel length matters.
Great points all. I should have reviewed the specs from the previous video where I took the velocities. With .457 round ball, I used 35 grains of 2F Olde Enynsford. With the conicals, I used 30 grains of 2F Olde Eynsford to make room for the longer bullet. The barrel length of the 1860 Army is the standard 8 inches. Thanks for watching and commenting. Todd
I wish there was a heeled .454 bullet mold with a flat top. I think that would make a better round for hunting with BP. I've been thinking about buying an end mill for my drill press and making a jig to hold the Johnston and Dow bullets, so that I can make them flat and gain some velocity. I'd probably use a 2 % tin to make it just a bit harder without being too hard.
I’ve never fired one and don’t know much about them, can anyone tell me how long an operator might leave the gun loaded?
Could the ignition caps be more affected by dirt, moisture and vibration than more modern ammo?
Or could you ride around for a week with a loaded Colt 1860 in your holster?
I love the idea of owning one and loading on the go for target shooting so I’d never be carrying around a loaded 1860 Colt but I’m super curious.
Thanks in advance if anyone can help.
Maybe I missed it but how many grains of powder did you use? And wich powder? Otherwise a great video! 😁
Video said GOEX, ffG. I was wondering about the load size too.
How much and what kind of black powder, wads used, etc.? While the power seen in these tests seems low clearly in either case they got the job done as witnessed by Civil War dead/wounded.
👍👍👍👍
So the benefit of the conical bullet in a paper cartridge over the round ball is easy and speed of loading and not necessarily fatality?
How many grains of Ffg goex did you use?
Why in the world do you complicate this jumping back and forth between SAE and metric units. Joules and pounds/foot are measures of the same effect. Pick a unit and stick with it. Either way works. A mix of the two is simply confusing.
Mainly because my mind understands foot pounds like it understands miles. I get kilometers, but tell me a distance in miles and I have an immediate understanding in my head. Tell me in kilometers and I'm not so sure. The formula for energy is made for metric units. So I have to input metric values and then convert to foot pounds at the end. Hey, it works for me and gives me a value I can relate to. Plus it makes my son think I'm smart. Thanks for watching! Todd
Good video but there are two things I would have done differently. 1 I would have posted the powder charge, 2 I would have used paper cartridges since they allegedly produce more pressure & they would have been more common for the army to use.
Good points. I think I talked about the powder charge, but maybe didn't put it on the screen. It's been a while since I filmed this one. Using a paper cartridge charge would be a good thing to compare. I'll do that the next warm day. It might be next June. Thanks for the comment. Todd
Awesome detailed testing 👌 so the round ball cause more damage to the target
Thanks for watching Baqash. The round ball hits with more shock while the conical penetrates deeper. That's been reportedly true anyway.
I am certified old fart , My father taught me to shoot the front shoulder area ( not killing shot ) but it is a ( knocking down shot ) , I never had to follow a blood trail more than a few yards .
I think my certification is in the mail. Not far behind you.
The mathematics is interesting and shooting reactive targets with both you can see the difference. Don't know about it being marginal for self defense, I sure wouldn't want to get slapped around by either.
Agreed. Marginal is a relative term.
Most people died from infection and the loss of appendages from being shot by those pistols, if it did not kill them right off.
Its quite a surprise to learn that guys in the civil war were firing something that was on the borderline of bouncing off its targets. Im curious what adjustments could be made to both round ball and conical shooting that would allow reaching the 300 mark while staying within the safety limits of the firearm itself.
Cvcoco, They are what they are. It was common to linger a while before dying of wounds. For days sometimes. It just depended on where you got hit. The velocities of today were unheard of and folks didn't know any better. Still, these were deadly firearms. Thanks for watching, Todd
@@frontierwesternheritage1356 I knew that shot placement has its value but I didnt mention it because in the heat of battle, and you are being shot at too, youd be grateful to hit anything. I didnt know your channel before today so you may have previously answered my next question, how would the results compare to revolvers right down to 5.5 in barrels?
@@cvcoco That's a good question. Velocities drop when the gas escapes earlier, but I'm not sure by how much. It will reduce effectiveness at more distant targets. I'll have to get a shorter pistol and try it out. Todd
Old confederate soldiers preferred the round ball because it took the fight out of them better than a conical
Maybe I missed it in the video, but I’m wondering how many grains of powder were used. I assume it was equal for both the conical and round ball?
The round ball had 35 grains behind it and the conical had 30. The conical bullet takes more space, so I had to reduce the powder charge so the bullet would not stick out beyond the cylinder. You get to a point where you deform the projectile if you try to compress the powder too much. I don't like to put that kind of force on my loading lever and pistol frame.
@@frontierwesternheritage1356 if you want higher velocity with out accuracy loss, try using Pyrodex P, or 777s even in the 3F grains. I think it will bump you into near magnum velocities. Make sure you have tight compression.
Will you can try a 250 semi wadcutter
Can you please tell how many grains of powder you used in those shots? Thanks.
I used 30 grains of 2F Olde Eynsford in the trial with the conical bullets. I could get 35 grains under the round ball. I apologize for not repeating the info from the earlier 1860 Army videos. Thanks for watching, Todd
@@frontierwesternheritage1356 Thank you. Those are interesting results, as power from your round balls from 35 grains of powder seem weaker than other folks I’ve seen. With 35 grains it should be well over 260 ft-lbs. However, they were using 3F. Which makes me think that maybe the chemical energy in the powder is inversely proportional to the size or surface area of the grains. Would be interesting to duplicate these trials with 3F.
Use the formula E = speed X speed X weight ÷ 450246 to give ft pounds just use feet per sec and weight in grains
Wouldn't the 1858 Remington with the same length barrel and load be exactly the same?
I would say yes. There may be some barrel or cylinder dimension differences from model to model but I bet it's not all that significant in performance. Thanks for watching. Todd
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸👍
My Hatsan 135 QE vortex .25 caliber air rifle shooting H&N 22 grain hornet pellets at about 770 feet per second on average is putting out a muzzle energy of about 29 foot pounds of energy or about 40 joules. They say the minimum joules to make a weapon lethal to a human is 50 joules which is about 36 foot pounds so my air rifle is a semi lethal weapon
Your pellet rifle is a lethal weapon when used as such. It's certainly not as lethal as a 30-06 but it certainly can kill with one shot.
I ended up selling that air rifle this past summer and investing in an Uberti 1858 new model army revolver and a Howell .45 colt cartridge conversion cylinder for it along with a couple of boxes of HSM .45 colt 200 grain cowboy loads for it. I’m getting an average velocity of about 750 feet per second with about 250 foot pounds of energy with it at the muzzle. I’ve put about the first 50 round box worth of ammo through my pistol throughout this past fall season over the course of a few sessions and as the video I posted on my channel from my most recent shooting session shows from about 45 or 50 feet away them 200 grain .45 colt bullets with about 250 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle really do some damage on a small cantaloupe even though at that distance only a few shots out of 20 total that was fired actually hit the cantaloupe in any way
Just ask Alec How Hard an 1860 HITs! He got a Twoffer!
Why mix your calculations; do the whole thing in in US units. You don't discuss trajectory and the advantages of the round ball.
Thanks Tim, I have since, through viewer comments, discovered the U.S. units formula and no longer go through all this rigmarole. You're right, I didn't cover everything. Thanks for watching. Todd
Why did you use FFg instead of FFFg in the 1860 Army?
This is just what I've found in my experience and from a lot of reading - others will disagree. We are so used to modern velocities that we push black powder velocities too hard for soft lead projectiles. I get much better groups when slowing the velocity. And groups open up when I try to use a faster powder. I know a lot of people use FFFg for everything, but have better luck with it in .36 and smaller, FFg in .44 and .45, and Fg in .50 and above. I just feel I need to take a black powder firearm for what it is and respect its history. They're very capable guns, but not magnums and never will be. Just my take for what it's worth. Others may have found accurate loads with FFFg. Thanks for watching. Todd
I get very good results and accuracy with plain Pyrodex P. Velocity is much higher than traditional black powder, and usuall more accurate. Just make sure to have good compression.
What are you a doctor in?
Education with an emphasis on hands-on history education. Kids think history is boring until you have them experience it as living historians. It is vital that the next generation knows something about the country they inherit.
@@frontierwesternheritage1356 I’m a history teacher myself but I’ve been out of the job for a couple years trying to start my own business
@@frontierwesternheritage1356 thank you for getting our youth interested sir!
@@frontierwesternheritage1356 while I've always found history fascinating, I think most history texts and classes place far too much emphasis on economics and present facts in a cold, technical way. I was very fortunate in middle school when our principal invited some fur trapper living history re-enactors to give a demonstration on flintlocks and caplocks. The next year, one history teacher brought his military firearms collection for a school-wide presentation on advancements in firearms through US history. Neither event would be allowed now, certainly not in a suburban school like I attended.
I think that highlights another factor: too few history teachers today are really into history, or history buffs. My nephew is a middle school history teacher, but his passion is coaching basketball. Of course I love him, but I've never known him to be passionate or care about history. Maybe it's always been this way, and I just didn't know. Montana 4H is very fortunate to have you.
Pistology .... 😉
it's kind of ambiguous to call the results "the knockdown power of the 1860 army" when the velocity readings were done with 2f goex.3f triple seven would propel those projectiles much faster.thus much more muzzle energy.just saying...
[ (fps velocity)2 x bullet weight grains ] / 450,240 = ft lb.s energy - easier and very close to what you're doing So... [ ( 734.1 x 734.1 ) x 217 ] / 450,240 = 259.73 vs 260.6 by your multi step method That is the way I've always done it... as I learned it from Handloader magazine iirc.
Thank you. I have been tipped off on this formula and quit the cumbersome conversions. Much better. Thanks for watching. Todd
Handloader makes a good magazine.
I like the way you did it. The layout is not really cumbersome. It helps with step-by-step understanding.@@frontierwesternheritage1356
Maybe in English?
You don't have to convert so much, just do the calculation in English units.
pounds = X / 7000
m = pounds / 32.16 Acceleration due to gravity in fps.
E = 0.5 * m * v **2
I find it also interesting that there's rotational energy too. So the total kinetic energy is higher but I don't think the rotational energy transfers much, if at all, to the target.
Thanks Daniel, I have since quit with the conversion formula. I use the the
one you recommend. I hadn't thought about rotational energy and will look into that. Thanks for watching, Todd
@@frontierwesternheritage1356 Thanks for responding...subbed, good content !
You cant blindly trust expert opinion on kinetic energy alone, because they probably had in mind modern hollowpoint bullets. Diameter and speed of these old bullets is what matters. Smaller bullet with smaller kinetic energy can penetrate deeper than larger bullet with more drag. In the end these bullets make pretty clean penetration path compared to modern hollow points, so the penetration in this case is more important than kinetic energy.
I won't argue with that. Kinetic energy is only one factor among several considerations. Hardness of the projectile is another, although most percussion revolver projectiles were relatively soft. Thanks for making a good point. Todd
You may be right, but the 45 acp wasn't designed to expand, and after Miami Dade, I'm sure the FBI scrutinized multiple calibers, weights, velocities, and designs. Regardless of expansion, if your projectile doesn't reach its destination, it's not as effective.
Damn you lost me at the first trigger pull so I guess that sucker will hurt you anyway I watch till the end and all them numbers was look like spaghetti to me
Good but not on point
Rb will kill, so will conical.
Conical is better, no doubt about it, but MV-me is meaningless, as targets are not at the muzzle unless your a mafia hit man in the movies.
How do these guys look at range. Twelve yards is more standard.
I like ball but I bet any velocity advantage for ball is over by ten/ twelve yards.
Why not try a modified Elmer Keith semi wadcutter with a flat nose and sharp cutting shoulder I think it can be done even with a hollow base
Thanks Larry, While I think that would be a devastating round, I was most interested in duplicating historic rounds and testing energy. If the flat nose bullet was around during the Civil War, they'd have used it. Thanks for watching, Todd
There is a MUCH simpler formula that will get you to FPE with zero conversions...
G (bullet wt. in grains) x FPS x FPS divided by 450249 = FPE
Works for me.