or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Gun Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Gun Appreciation Thread - Page 136

ft/lb is generally used to describe torque

Bullet energy is calculated using this equation. Mass (in grains) times Velocity (feet per second) squared divided by 450400. The result is kinetic energy measured in foot pounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel

That has to be about the dumbest statement I have ever seen in a discussion of this sort. Can't you even read a ballistic table?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle

Bad news, bro. Force isn't measured in ft/lbs. In fact, I don't even know what ft/lb is. If you are referring to ft-lbs, that is a measure of energy which is directly and proportionally related to lbs of force, but not a force measurement.

Notice the larger caliber with the slower F/S bullets have more ft/lb of force

And....

 foot-pound 1. A unit of work equal to the work or energy needed to lift a one-pound weight a distance of one foot against the force of the Earth's gravity. One foot pound is equivalent to 1.3558 joules. 2. A unit of torque equal to a pound of force acting perpendicularly to an axis of rotation at a distance of one foot. Also called pound-foot.

Edited by smokeyfan1000 - 8/10/12 at 3:57pm
Work and force are separate concepts. From a basic physics class, work is force times distance, and measured in joules, which are N•m. Newton-meters can also be measured at kg•m^2/s^2.

Ft/lb can be converted to m/kg, which is neither a unit of force (N= kg•m/s^2, or mass•speed or velocity, divided by time) nor a unit of work. Ft-lb is not, at least from a mathematical point of view, equivalent to ft/lb.

This is what taking the MCAT last weekend does to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokeyfan1000

Notice the larger caliber with the slower F/S bullets have more ft/lb of force

And....
 foot-pound1. A unit of work equal to the work or energy needed to lift a one-pound weight a distance of one foot against the force of the Earth's gravity. One foot pound is equivalent to 1.3558 joules.2. A unit of torque equal to a pound of force acting perpendicularly to an axis of rotation at a distance of one foot. Also called pound-foot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krish the Fish

Work and force are separate concepts. From a basic physics class, work is force times distance, and measured in joules, which are N•m. Newton-meters can also be measured at kg•m^2/s^2.
Ft/lb can be converted to m/kg, which is neither a unit of force (N= kg•m/s^2, or mass•speed or velocity, divided by time) nor a unit of work. Ft-lb is not, at least from a mathematical point of view, equivalent to ft/lb.
This is what taking the MCAT last weekend does to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokeyfan1000

Notice the larger caliber with the slower F/S bullets have more ft/lb of force

And....
 foot-pound1. A unit of work equal to the work or energy needed to lift a one-pound weight a distance of one foot against the force of the Earth's gravity. One foot pound is equivalent to 1.3558 joules.2. A unit of torque equal to a pound of force acting perpendicularly to an axis of rotation at a distance of one foot. Also called pound-foot.

I won't repeat what Krish just said other than to say that is what being an engineer has done to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokeyfan1000

Notice the larger caliber with the slower F/S bullets have more ft/lb of force

And....
 foot-pound1. A unit of work equal to the work or energy needed to lift a one-pound weight a distance of one foot against the force of the Earth's gravity. One foot pound is equivalent to 1.3558 joules.2. A unit of torque equal to a pound of force acting perpendicularly to an axis of rotation at a distance of one foot. Also called pound-foot.

The reason I was being harsh is that the .41 and .44 Magnum cartridges when loaded up to their potential have very high velocities for conventional handgun cartridges. Customary ballistics for the .41 Magnum are a 210-grain bullet at 1,350 fps or so, for the .44 Magnum 240/1450, so of course they hit harder.

Loading a .41 Magnum 210-grainer down to 850 fps will give you 337 foot-pounds of energy, which is about what you will get from a middlin' fair 9mm Parabellum hollowpoint. Whether the downloaded .41 gives you a better level of protection with its bigger, heavier bullet than the 9mm JHP will set differing factions of knowledgeable handgunners arguing all day long.

My view, after a lifetime of studying such matters, is that the two most important factors in cartridge effectiveness, other things being equal (e.g., bullet placement) are bullet design and construction and kinetic energy. Bullet weight and unfired diameter do count for something but not nearly as much as most of the old-timers supposed. Those were the most important factors back in the days of black powder, when velocities were pretty uniform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's

Find yourself a plastic mallet and give it a whack. It'll come off. My MK2 is still sticky like that after all these years.

I bought a small hammer which has a hardish plastic end and a rubber mallet on the other end (it was the cheapest one they had at the store). A couple solid whacks and it came right off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokeyfan1000

If I create a webpage and register my own domain name does that some how make my opinion more valid than if I post on a forum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokeyfan1000

Still, that seems like a well thought out, pragmatic and balanced treatment of the topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel

Still, that seems like a well thought out, pragmatic and balanced treatment of the topic.

I rather like Mr Camp's writing on the M1935 Hi Power, his primary field of expertise. I was actually planning to meet-up with him at one point, to discuss a possible writing project. That never happened and, sadly, he passed away last year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle

If I create a webpage and register my own domain name does that some how make my opinion more valid than if I post on a forum?

Not my webpage,.. I found it online. I googled it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel

Still, that seems like a well thought out, pragmatic and balanced treatment of the topic.

I would agree as well. What's convincing me to go with a 9 is it's a bit easier and quicker to follow up with and ammo is so much cheaper so that means more practice time. A 9 40 or 45 are all good choices. I have never second guessed any of these calibers and their ability to perform adequately.
This is an interesting read: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866/
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinW

This is an interesting read: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866/

Yes it is. I've been saying for a long time that I didn't think there was much of a difference, if any, between the common defensive calibers. Sure we can split hairs but in reality what's the point? Now I do think this shows very clearly that there is no magic caliber. I also like how he points out that shot placement is far more important than anything else. That's something I have always said and good luck convincing me otherwise.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Gun Appreciation Thread