08-20-2011, 07:23 PM
I think the difference in how one interprets the information is the focus on a single dimension or effect versus looking at the challenge as a constrained system where trades need to be made.
As near as I can tell, the context of almost any discussion in this forum is the Grendel. My interest is in what bullet designs, etc. might help it perform better in various encounters.
To be sure, mass is important, but it is only a part of the system and the Grendel platform puts significant constraints on the mass that can be brought to the problem.
I will repeat, one has to get through any intervening material before the response in gel (or any liquid) begins to be important.
Further, the milk jug tests more closely illustrate the dynamic wound cavity than the permanent wound cavity. Martin Fackler and others have shown that the dynamic cavity, while capable of presenting spectacular pictures, does not adequately represent wound potential in torso-sized objects with individual weapons.
To illustrate, consider the difference in how that milk jug responds to the 5.56 to how a 5 gallon plastic can will. Or to get more graphic, a squirrel coming apart when hit by that round versus a small hole in a deer - both responses from the same bullet at the same velocity. You just can't count on the dynamic cavity causing significant damage unless the body is small enough that the skin (or package) ruptures.
To repeat:
[INDENT]1) Hydrodynamic shock, while interesting, is a minor player in the terminal effects the Grendel needs to generate.
2) When working to get the most out of a cartridge, trades in penetration, energy, and bullet construction are needed.[/INDENT]
Bottom Line: If the purpose of this thread is merely to entertain, then I will read with amusement. If, however, the comments appear to impact the Grendel (or other cartridge) design space, I will likely add more comments.
As near as I can tell, the context of almost any discussion in this forum is the Grendel. My interest is in what bullet designs, etc. might help it perform better in various encounters.
To be sure, mass is important, but it is only a part of the system and the Grendel platform puts significant constraints on the mass that can be brought to the problem.
I will repeat, one has to get through any intervening material before the response in gel (or any liquid) begins to be important.
Further, the milk jug tests more closely illustrate the dynamic wound cavity than the permanent wound cavity. Martin Fackler and others have shown that the dynamic cavity, while capable of presenting spectacular pictures, does not adequately represent wound potential in torso-sized objects with individual weapons.
To illustrate, consider the difference in how that milk jug responds to the 5.56 to how a 5 gallon plastic can will. Or to get more graphic, a squirrel coming apart when hit by that round versus a small hole in a deer - both responses from the same bullet at the same velocity. You just can't count on the dynamic cavity causing significant damage unless the body is small enough that the skin (or package) ruptures.
To repeat:
[INDENT]1) Hydrodynamic shock, while interesting, is a minor player in the terminal effects the Grendel needs to generate.
2) When working to get the most out of a cartridge, trades in penetration, energy, and bullet construction are needed.[/INDENT]
Bottom Line: If the purpose of this thread is merely to entertain, then I will read with amusement. If, however, the comments appear to impact the Grendel (or other cartridge) design space, I will likely add more comments.