Can /k/ tell me why the energy of a round isn't directly related to its stopping power.
Bc I shot 150 rounds of 44mag out of my new big boy today and my shoulder is wrecked.
But 44mag has less energy than 5.56, yet 44mag is bear protection tier and bruises my shoulder.
Is there no quantifiable numbers for the "true energy" of a round?
Big round-faced bullets making big holes will generally speaking provide more stoopin powah than a spitzer point like 5.56. You need big holes and lots of hydrostatic shock to get true "stopping power" especially for bears. Hell, factory loads of .45-70 compatible with the Springfield trapdoor aren't much hotter than hot loaded .44 magnum and they almost drove the American bison to extinction from single shot rifles.
As to recoil, look at the size of the cartridges. Do you see how much more powder and primer is in the .44 magnum cartridge? That directly translates to felt recoil.
>>30662675
Nope. There is no such thing as a foot pound. It's bullshit made up by ammo manufacturers a long time ago. Sorry.
>>30662749
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-pound_%28energy%29
>>30662675
>Can /k/ tell me why the energy of a round isn't directly related to its stopping power.
because "stopping power" is a spook that's cumulative between many different factors. energy, penetration, mass, cavitation, shot placement....there's just so much to consider as to whether something is going to stop after you hit it that you can't just say "ooh, X is what determines stopping power".
>>30662749
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)
In the gravitational systems, the weight of the mass unit (pound-mass) on Earth's surface is approximately equal to the force unit (pound-force). This is convenient because one pound mass exerts one pound force due to gravity. Note, however, unlike the other systems the force unit is not equal to the mass unit multiplied by the acceleration unit[8]—the use of Newton's Second Law, F = m·a, requires another factor, gc, usually taken to be 32.174049 lbm·ft/lbf·s2 = 32.174049 lbm/slug. "Absolute" systems are coherent systems of units: by using the slug as the unit of mass, the "engineering" FPS system avoids the need for such a constant. The SI is an "absolute" metric system with kilogram and meter as base units.
>>30662749
Dumbass tripfag, lrn2comprehend. There is more ft/lbs of energy in a .223 than .44 magnum. That was my point.
>>30662675
.44 mag from a rifle has more muzzle energy than .223 from one
Nice rifle. Is that the carbine? How is the accuracy?
>>30662886
Don't look at revolver velocities for .44 mag
You gain about 400 feet per second from a rifle barrel
Lots more energy
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/44mag.html
Energy
Penetration
Cavitation
Mass of the Projectile
Shot Placement
>>30662975
What is How to get a woman pregnant, Alex?
>>30662896
I know, they're close though.
>>30662908
At 50yds sitting, elbows on bench with no rest, i was doing pretty well, like 6" groups, but im new and not anygood. It was impacting about 4" right, and you need a puller tool on front sight to change windage so I didn't mess with that.
>>30662675
how did you manage to bruise your shoulder shooting a pistol caliber carbine? I mean, I might expect that from a 45-70, but not from a .44 mag. are you sure you've got the thing shouldered properly?
>>30663139
Pretty sure my technique was OK. To clarify, no bruising, but busted capillaries and it's definitely sore when I shoulder the rifle now.
>>30662675
That thing has shit ergos though. I can shoot a Garand or K31 all day long but shooting two boxes from a standard stock nugget makes everything sore.
>>30663243
Not only that, but loading from the muzzle-end of the tube instead of a loading gate makes me REEEEE profusely. It's too unnecessarily cumbersome.
>>30662749
Sorry nobody else understands sarcasm. Then again, it is you.
You can hunt bears with .50 cal air rifles than don't put more energy than a .45 acp in terms of ft-lbs
>>30662886
Once again: There is no such thing as a foot-pound. It is an arbitrary figure arrived at when you multiply bullet weight by velocity. It gives you higher figures for the 22-250 than for the 45-70. It was made up by the marketing departments of ammo manufacturers in the early 1900's. It's horseshit.
You want to hunt bear with a 45-70, fine. I'll notify your family.
>>30663404
No, you are wrong, GTFO tripfag. Kinetic energy does exist, and it exists outside of ballistics too. It is a quantifiable metric used in all kinds of applications.
Btfo phil
>>30663025
.44 mag from a rifle is about twice the energy, dude
The recoil is around 11 pounds or so, with .223 being non-existent at 2 or so
>>30663404
Wait 45-70 is supposed to have problems re bear? Honestly don't know of issues and wondering if I have just been lucky out west.
It depends on the size of the target. It's about how much energy can be effective imparted into the target.
Kuntsman please go
>>30663404
I think you forgot this is night /k
>>30663659
He's just trolling; 45-70 is fine for all North American game - bear, buffalo and deer alike.
>>30663639
.44 mag out of a levergat recoils similar to around 3/4 of an AK in my experience, maybe a bit lighter and not quite as stout
>>30664199
It's about the same as 7.62x39mm/.30-30, yeah.
They're all around 10-12 pounds depending on the gun weight and load.
>>30662675
>44mag
>bruises my shoulder.
1-800-come-on-now.jpg
>>30664312
I've always thought that 30-30 kicked the hardest of the 3
>>30663139
>>30664460
Probably by a little due to the heavier pills, but nothing extraordinary
x39mm
.44 Mag (240 grain)
.30-30
.44 Mag (300 grain)
>>30664199
>>30664312
>>30664460
>>30664446
I own a wasr, and a Matlin 336, this big boy has significantly more recoil. So stfu about what you've heard
>>30662675
>Why does a pingpong ball going 40mph hurt less than a kettlebell going 10mph?
It's not just energy and speed OP, projectile weight is a big factor too.
A 12 gauge slug has way less power behind it and travels far slower but will do far more damage to your shoulder and your target than a .223 because it weights almost 10x as much.
>>30663877
About what I figured with what happened when I used it but every now and again surprises crop up
>>30664499
TRUBS CONFIRM
>>30664531
Not what I've heard nigger, what I've shot.
I own or have owned a .30-30, 7.62x39 AK, and a .44 mag Big Boy steel.
From my experience it goes
>.44 mag
> x39
> 30-30
>>30664605
I understand physics. That why I'm asking this question, bc there is no quantifiable measurement.
>>30664638
OK nigger. All I know is, my shoulder hurts after shooting 150rds with the Henry 44mag. Ive never had a sore shoulder shooting anything else.
>>30664656
Wouldn't you have to measure this by observing how the various rounds damaged a target? Like ballistics gel tests but in a way that that actually tells you something beyond "Hurr da round went real far in da jelly".
>>30664686
150 rds of most stuff stronger than .223 will probably do that to you
The brass butt plate on the Henry doesn't help with felt recoil.
It's appalling that Physics isn't a required class to graduate High School
>>30664656
>I understand physics. That why I'm asking this question, bc there is no quantifiable measurement.
>>30664848
Herpa derp. Nice me me.
Pls xpln doctor, how is kinetic energy is different than stopping powah.
>>30664875
>How is energy different from power?
Amerifart education everybody.
>>30664848
So what youre saying is, foot pounds of energy is the ultimate measurement of the effectiveness of a given round. Because in this thread, the discussion is 5.56 from 18" barrel vs 44 mag in a 6" barrel is very close to same energy, yet 44mag from a revolver is much more effective against a large aggressive mammal than a 5.56 from a rifle.
>>30665021
No no no don't you blame us for that. Idiots are everywhere.
>>30665021
>>30665032
You people are fucking idiots
>>30665021
You're being a retard. He isn't asking for the wattage of a bullet.
>>30665021
dumbass, OP is asking why a 240gr slug at 1100fps is better than a 55gr at 3200fps, both same energy.
>>30665028
You're retarded. Bullet size, shape, and fragmentation have a huge impact on stopping power versus bears. .44 makes bigger holes in the bear and is more likely to punch through its skull if you land a head shot.
>>30665064
.223 will go trough a grizzlys head
>>30665062
It's because the slug is heavier, gravity pulls it deeper into the target so it does more damage.
If we were on mars a .45-70 would have to be like 5x bigger to kill a bear.
>>30665120
>Martian atmosphere is 96% CO2
>Mars is as cold as the Arctic so you could use polar bears with just breathing helmets and air tanks
>>30662675
Good question OP. It's the same question that haunts all the 9mm fanboys. The answer you're looking for is the concept of "sectional density" or "hydrostatic shock"
You're welcome
>>30664875
Please for the love of god, just stop.
>>30665174
>You will never hunt genetically engineered Martian polar bears with a 2 gauge shoulder cannon
I will be a slave to the MegaCorps for 1000 years if they let me put my brain in a robot body senpai.
>Tfw exterminating colonists light years from earth while my human morality gets slowly burned away
>>30665194
This is same enigma of why 45acp is superior over 9mm
>>30665120
Wat
To answer the OP: A .44 Mag with a rifle length barrel will have way more energy than .223, which will translate to more felt recoil. To get into territory I understand less, apparently the amount of powder in a round correlates to the felt recoil. I suspect (but am by no means positive) that this is because the propellant is pushing harder against the projectile, and consequently, your shoulder. With a heavier bullet you'll get higher recoils too, because the inertia of the bullet in relation to the inertia of the rifle is higher. All of this (and I'm sure other things I am unaware of) contributes to felt recoil. .44 Mag fits all of these.
Now, to the question about stopan powah, I tend to subscribe to the energy dump theory when talking about the ability to physically stop something, which can also translate to trauma. However a lot of people tend to also be referring to lethality of a round when they say stopping power, which has a ridiculous amount of variables that compose it, from stopping power to penetration to whatever. Basically though, something can have a lot of stopping power and low lethality by having no penetration (theoretically). And stopping power is just the amount of energy dumped on target. So when you over penetrate, you lose stopping power because energy has been wasted. So big fat rounds tend to have more stopping power, with less penetration.
>>30665194
>implying any of the big 3 pistol rounds can dump enough energy to achieve hydrostatic shock
>comparing .45 ACP to .44 mag out of a rifle
shut the fuck up, fudd
>>30665194
>>30665278
>Implying hydrostatic shock is even real
>Implying hydrostatic shock would have any effect of a living being if it even was real
>Subsonic rounds can cause hydrostatic shock
I see the /k/indergarteners stayed up past bedtime.
>>30665278
>>30665317
Please imply to me this,
Which would be more effective against a grizzly
- 240 grain .44 magnum projectile out of aout of a 2" barrel
- 75 grain bthp out of a 18" barrel.
both around 1150ft/lbs energy
Please imply
>>30665416
The .44 mag. It actualy has enough weight to penetrate far enough to reach the grizzly's vital organs. The wimpy little .223 will basicaly disintegrate when it hits a hard enough object, like a grizzly bear's ribs.
Alright /k/, time to learn some physics. Energy ( 1/2 mass x velocity squared) is a term that is always thrown out whenever people talk about "stopping power", but during a collision, kinetic energy is not conserved, its lost. What is conserved is momentum (mass x velocity). So while a 223 may have more kinetic energy than a heavy pistol round (since in the energy formula velocity is squared), it doesn't have near as much momentum.
Here's an example:
We'll say a 55gr (weighing 0.0079 lb) .223 travels 3200 ft/s, which gives us a momentum of 25.12 ft lb/s.
While a 300 gr .44 mag (weight 0.429 lb) traveling 1400 ft/s gives us a momentum of 60 ft lb/s.
So if you want "knock em on their ass" power, use a heavy, slower round.
>>30662675
You also need to take other variables into account. Using the same round under controlled conditions, I'm sure you would find a difference in stopping power between shooting a baby and shooting an angry silverback gorilla
>>30662675
44mag is considered bear protection tier because of penetration. it has more mass and doesnt stop as quickly, so it can keep going through bear meat. a 5.56 is traveling so fast, its so tiny, that as soon as it hits the bear its going to explode into even smaller fragments that will lose their velocity almost immediately
>>30666476
>Shooting a baby vs gorilla
What? Your target doesn't change the physics of the bullet, just the needs of your round of choice. The problem with the term stopping power is it doesn't really mean anything, its a made up phrase that means different things to different people.
>>30663139
44 mag thumps out of a rifle, obviously youve never shot it
regular rem 240gr 44mag will get about 1800fps out of a rifle
>>30666556
>thumps
Not really.
>>30665416
Your retarded as fuck.
>>30664605
Energy is a function of mass and speed. What you mean to say is, it isn't simply a function of energy, but of how/how much of that energy is dumped into what part of a target is important.
>>30664446
>>30663190
Op, Hate to break it to you. Your a huge pussy. Last time i went to the range i shot 200 rounds of surplus 308 through my M1A. No pain at all. Man up faggot
>>30667220
This, I've fired 44 and 357 from leverguns all my life and even at twelve 44 mag was nothing, op is a massive bitch
>>30664686
You obviously haven't shot any high powered rifles like 7mm rem mag, 300 win mag, and above.
Hell, a 12 gauge with 3 inch slugs can fuck your shoulder up.
>>30662675
I'm pretty sure that if you have a given amount of power, using it to propel something heavy is less efficient in terms of energy output than to propel something lighter and faster. That explains why the recoil of a rifle doesn't hit you as hard as the impact of the bullet it fired despite an equal force acting on both objects.
>>30667287
I have actually. I own a remington 700 in 7mm rm and 12ga h&r topper. Both kick much harder. But I've never shot more than 20rds in a setting. This was 150rds in about 45mins.
Btw i'm 6'1" 240 lbs 36yo, and I've worked as a framer for 14years. Any of you fuckboys calling me a pussy would be btfo irl. Just saying.
And yes, my shoulder is still soar this morning.
>>30662675
What I always thought was that the amount of momentum transfered to the target is the stopping power.
So you can have a very fast bullet that go right through you which wouldn't impart much momentum to the target and have low stopping power
>>30668678
Being a fatass doesn't help felt recoil. You have more mass resisting the force. Sounds like you need to go on a diet.
>>30662975
>>30664499
Nice trubs, my doode.
>>30663404
You are stupid as fuck. A 45-70 with hardcast projectiles is one of THE most trusted anti-grizzly weapons.
I grew up in Manitoba in Polar Bear country and currently reside in Alaska.
>>30663404
fuqqin troll
Nobody can actually be this stupid.
