Bullet Math

[Autorim]

I just did a bit of math on frontal area of bullets. According to my calculations the .41 mag is 25% larger than the .357. The .44 mag is 8% larger than the .41 and the .45 is 10% larger than the .44.

Not to say this really means anything except as a comparison and the fact that there is really not that much difference in the field between the .41 and .45 but a much larger jump from the .357 to larger calibers.

One interesting aspect is brought out in W.D.M Bell's book "The Wanderings of an Elephant Hunter" in which he describes how it is not diameter or bullet size, but placement that kills  - even with a .256 or .276 bullet with a body shot. He goes on to explain that he had been assured by native elephant hunters that it is not the bullet that which causes the animal's death, but the fire from the powder which enters the hole made by the bullet. What do we know......? Maybe I will break out the tracers.

Ken

[Mikey]

Autorim - no tracers, they cauterize the wound on the way through and really whiz off the Elephants, who then come lookin for ya with a attitude...........

Your math is interesting.  What bullets did you include in your data analysis: wadcutters, semiwadcutters, lbt designs?? 

[drdougrx]

Oh...sounds like a College math word problem...if you start musing about two trains traveling on the same track at different speeds......I'm toast!

Anyway, I remember Ross sigfied wrote in an article years ago about the 475 limbaugh and the wide meplat that smacked game before penetration.  Placement was important, but he said the smack and the momentum caused a more spectacular kill as compared to a RN or even a kieth bullet.  Interesting stuff....

I've been testing some cast precision 250grLWFPGC in in mu 41mag BH.  Maybe we'll try'm on a hog this spring...Mikey....you in???

[Mikey]

Hey Doug - a spring hog hunt sounds a bit nicer than one of those winter time hunts, especially fer ol guys like me who get cold toes and fingers, and a cold nose and ears, and a cold butt if I hafta sit inna snow........

[drdougrx]

ohhhh....baaabbbbyyy......

I'll keep you posted!

[Castaway]

Absolutley, bullet placement is the most critical part of the equation, but the bigger the bullet, the bigger the critical area of what you are shooting

[WFN]

If the frontal area is the area within the largest diameter on a vertical plane, the 41 mag is 32% larger than the .357

.41x.5=.205x.205x3.1416=.1320 sqin area.   
.357x.5=.1785x.1785x3.1416=.1001 sqin area.
.1320-.1001=.0319/.1001= .31868 = 32%

Not much use with expanding bullets, but with the military FMJ the 45 ACP makes a 61.3% bigger hole than the 9mm, I will take the 45 ACP!

[Autorim]

WFN

.1001 area of the .357 divided by .1320 area of the .41 = .7580 or 75.8% of the frontal area of a .41.  I rounded off to 75% or a 25% net gain.

[safetysheriff]

American Handgunner magazine of July, 2001

The Eight Great Truths About Terminal Ballistics      by: J.D. Jones

* If the shot is poorly placed, an animal is likely to be lost.

* An exit wound usually bleeds much more than an entrance wound.

* The differences in bullet diameter and velocities of .44 to .50 caliber revolvers is minimal, normally unrecognizable in either animal reaction or wound examination.

the rest of it can be found on the web...........    that last one about .44 to .50 caliber bullets is something i found very interesting.    Jones is no slouch........

ss'

[corbanzo]

Absolutley, bullet placement is the most critical part of the equation, but the bigger the bullet, the bigger the critical area of what you are shooting

Wrong.  Even the difference between a .25 and a .50 bullet isnt going to make you hit a more "critical area," you only expand out 0.125" on either side in this example.  A bigger bullet will maintain more energy and therefore get more penetration, but a small bullet going faster is going to transfer more energy, and cause more damage. 

So in reality, the smaller bullet will make the radius of damage larger, while the bigger bullet is going to make the linear damage larger - the wound channel longer.  This is of course unless you get a full pass through.  If you get a full pass through, the smaller bullet may still have more energy and cause a larger exit wound, or the larger bullet since it will maintain more energy will cause a larger exit wound.  Larger bullet having the advantage if obstacles like bones are in the way. 

So in reality, with hydrashock, a smaller faster bullet would give you a better chance to hit a critical area, as it slows faster and transfers more energy into the surrounding tissues while the larger bullet maintains its energy. 

I do agree with the first part about shot placement....

[corbanzo]

Oh, and guys bickering over the math.   

If you want to find the percentage INCREASE, or how much larger, then you start with .1001

.1001 * x = .1320

x = .1320/.1001

x=1.3186

1.3186 x 100=

131.86% of the original value.

If you want to figure out how much smaller, start with larger:

.1320 * x= .1001

x=.1001/.1320

x=0.7583

0.7583 * 100= 75.83%

Percentages do not rise and fall in a linear fashion.  If you increase 100 by 25% and then descrease that number (125) by 25% you don't end up back at 100.  (93.75)  A .357 is 24.17% smaller than a .41 mag, but a .41 mag is 31.86% larger than a .357 mag. 


If you want to figure out the actual difference, with regards to BOTH objects, then they both need to be in the equation.

So the numerical difference is ABS(.1001-.1320) = 0.0319
Then the average is (.1001+.1320)/2 = 0.11605

So dividing the numerical difference into the average value of the objects, the actual difference, not the percentage change between the two is 0.0319/0.11305= 0.2821 * 100 = 28.21%

Math is fun isn't it?  So if you average out both of your percentages, then you are right.

[Mikey]

"So in reality, with hydrashock, a smaller faster bullet would give you a better chance to hit a critical area, as it slows faster and transfers more energy into the surrounding tissues while the larger bullet maintains its energy" - Hmmmm, sounds like the M16 theory.

"Math is fun isn't it?"  Naw, it's a pita.   

"So if you average out both of your percentages, then you are right".  Doesn't that make you both right and wrong?

[drdougrx]

Faculty........

[John R.]

I don't know about all that math, but from what I've experienced, bigger bullets (in handguns) kill better than smaller bullets.

[shot1]

For shooting BIG game with a relative slow moving bullet, big bullet size and heavy bullet weight is the way to go. I once read this from a story told by an old Buffalo hunter on killing Buffalo. "Shoot them in the lungs with a 44 and up caliber with at least 400 grs of bullet and get your skinners ready". One other old time hunter said "When you shoot game with a 45 or 50 Sharps through the lungs you can eat right up to the bullet hole." Back then with black powder pushing a bullet you did not get high velocity so penetration through things that make them live did the killing. Same holds true for slow moving pistol rounds today.

[Autorim]

I posted this merely to illustrate that there is a considerable jump in size form the .357 to .41 and not much from .41 to .45. All will kill with a properly placed shot and all will wound with a poorly placed shot.

To quote Bell, "I wired both triggers of the double .450/.400 together, so that when I pulled the rear one both barrels went off simultaneously. By doing this I obtained the equivalent of 800 grains of lead propelled by 120 grains of cordite. The net result was still the same. If wrongly placed, the 800 grains from the .400 had no more effect than the 200 grains from the .275. For years after that I continued to use the .275 and the .256 in all kinds of country for all kinds of game. Each hunter should use the weapon he has the most confidence in."

Ken

[Castaway]

So, you'd rather get hit by a 16 lb. bowling ball at 700 f/s than a sewing needle at 5,000 f/s

[corbanzo]

Your 112000 grain bowling ball is putting out 121,838 ft lbs

Your 5 grain sewing needle is putting out 277 ft lbs

But no, your rediculous example really drives the point home that you don't know what you're talking about.  So thanks.


I would MUCH rather get shot by a .454 casull than a .30-06.
I would rather get shot by a .357 than a .454.
I would rather be hit with a REALLY big rock than shot with a .357.

Personally I would rather just not get shot... maybe that is just me.  

[Sweetwater]

At 7 years old, I was hit in the face with a rock the size of a softball. At 52, I fell into a cactus. That's as close to getting "shot" with anything that I want to be, and that probably is just me! My wife was up all night with magnifiers and tiny pliers getting that cactus out of me. All down my right side, shoulder to calf.

However, math is fun and easy to get lost in, just as long as it stays fun! LOL

Regards,
Sweetwater

[Castaway]

My, my corbanzo, aren't we touchy.  When making comparisons, look at the extremes.

[Lloyd Smale]

sorry guys but ive yet to find a mathmatical equations that will accurately predict how a bullet will do on a live animal.Most arent even close!

[corbanzo]

In an extreme comparison the pin would be going 15680000fps to be comparable. 

.357 and .41.... not all too different

Just sayin.  Apples to Apples.  Not Apples to Greater kudu.

My, my corbanzo, aren't we touchy.  When making comparisons, look at the extremes.

[Sweetwater]

Autorim-
I've got to side with Mikey and ask "what bullet styles are you comparing within these calibers"? My calculator says that for your value stated for the 41, you are talking a full wadcutter as your Frontal Area example. IF you are talking full wadcutters for all examples stated, I've got to ask, "why"? Not so I disagree or agree, but just so I may understand.
I also have to say, I agree with your main intent, that there is a much bigger jump from the 357 to the 41 than there is from the 41 to either the 44 or 45. It may all be fruit cocktail, but it ain't all apples.

Regards,
Sweetwater

[Autorim]

My calculations were full diameter, using simple math and only posted to illustrate the point that there is a much larger jump from a .357 to a .41 and not so much from a .41 to .44 and .45 - nothing more. The main point being that all are adequate IF the shot is placed properly.

Interestingly enough, this year, I have probably shot at least 60 squirrels with my .20 cal air rifle and I pay very close attention to place that round nose pellet in the heart/lung area. Very few drop in their tracks and just like larger game many run as if nothing happened then fall after a few seconds. Some fall instantly then recover to run then fall for good. Just like in larger game, a misplaced hit does not result in a humane kill.

I have also shot many with a .22 and SV ammo and there is virtually no difference in performance.

[TMAKER]

  I know we are pushing this post all over multiple subjects but I think it comes down to the critter you plan to put the hole in. Most of my experience comes from 120# whitetail in TN and this is what I have seen. I have killed between 75 and 100 deer and 30% were with a 25-06 rifle at 100yards or less and they seldom go 10 yards and have made some good and bad shots. 40% were killed with black powder, shotgun and a bow. Seldom have they gone less than 10 yds and most are 100yds. My conclusion is that I do shoot the 25-06 better and the deer are affected more by fast small bullets than big slow ones. On the other end of the critter spectrum are bears, big, thick and not at all affected by velocity. They need 2 big holes trough hard muscle and bone that a 100 grain bullet won’t penetrate to do the job.

 SO If I had a 10' bear ready to eat me and all I had was a 25-06 I would probably shoot myself so the bear could eat is piece without a nasty powder burn on his chest.
If I had a big buck in front of me and I had a 45lc I would shoot and except the fact that I may need to walk a little.

The moral to this story is fit the bullet to the critter and you shooting ability.