>against unarmored targets
>less recoil for the same muzzle energy
>3 times faster for the same muzzle energy
Why is that fast poly bullets never became popular?
>against unarmored targets
They're as popular as any other niche projectile type.
What about a tiny tungsten ball for penetration?
Everyone wants the good shit but somehow reverts back to inferior hollow points
The ultralight bullet weight can cause issues feeding in many guns, and the point of impact is usually radically different from traditional projectiles
I was able to feed Interceptor ARX ammo into my 1911 every single time. If the 1911 could do it, so can every other gun.
Hard to find. Some years there is a decent supply then run dry for years. Grab them while you can! Great for short barrel CCW
>>less recoil for the same muzzle energy
??? if it's the same energy it's the same energy going backwards too
Momentum (P) and energy (E) aren't the same.
E = velocity * velocity * mass / 2
P = velocity * mass
Lighter bullets and fast bullets have less recoil.
recoil = momentum of the bullet (ignoring the bolt and the effect of buffer)
It took me a second to think about, but if you have 2 bullets, 1 plastic and 1 lead, with the same powder charge behind each, the plastic 1 might not even build as much pressure due to being lighter and in a short barrel, and might not even create as much force as the powder charge behind the lead bullet.
theoretically, if you had the same pressure(?) amount behind each bullet, it should result in the same recoil maximum pulse right? despite bullets travelling at different speeds.
but the lighter bullet would be a very fast recoil pulse and "feel" like less recoil than the lead, someone correct me.
>theoretically, if you had the same pressure(?) amount behind each bullet, it should result in the same recoil maximum pulse right?
in this scenario, yes it would.
pressure is just force per area. same pressure in this scenario for both bullets means the same force pushing back on the gun.
In reality they wouldn't have the same pressure, though.
There’s a lot that goes into felt recoil…
I'm a 45ACP fan for carry as a civilian. At 66 I've been carrying for a long time. And in my job I had to point weapons at threatening people many times. Two things I know. #1. Rifles are more accurate and in centerfire more powerful. #2. Handguns shoot less powerful cartridges and are less accurate because of their design. Why then carry a handgun? You all know why. It can be concealed, and in the right hands save lives.The ARX inceptor in 45ACP is in my opinion the best self defence round made for handguns. My Colt Gold Cup and Ruger P90 with 5 inch barrels both showed around 1350 fps. My Glock 30 Gen4 1300 fps. With no more ( I felt less in my opinion) felt recoil that standard 230 grain target ammo. Busted through a 4x4 and vaporized the contents of a full 2 ltr soda bottle behind it. Velocity matters more so than bullet weight. I actually carry this ammo now for everyday use. Whys? One, it does the job as well or better than any other 45 ACP choice out there. Two, 118 grain in weight versus 230 grain bullets times 14 rounds means your firearm weighs much less. But the this is only my opinion, albeit an experienced opinion. Do your homework, try different cartridge offerings and pick what's best for you. Be safe fellow 2nd amendment lovers!!
>guys velocity is really important, here is my recommended ammunition for 45 acp
This is your brain on alzheimer's
This guy has huffed a lot of lead fumes and guzzled his fair share of cum
>less penetration for the same energy
>loses energy faster
>no over penetration
>ideal energy transfer
You know what really increases energy transfer? A bullet proof vest. Turns out simply transferring energy isn't what kills with handheld guns. The energy you deliver can go into ripping apart tissue, ie help kill the target, or it can be lost as heat, and not even 50BMG has enough energy to cause significant harm by heating the target.
Now if you actually want a bullet that'll be worse at incapacitating and killing, ie one that penetrates poorly, then sure. These plastics bullets could work for that. Or you could use fragmenting bullets, or just less gunpowder behind the bullet.
>against unarmored targets
Oh, so you're hitting the "intentionally obtuse" stage now, where the ability to how understand examples are used to illustrate general principles is suddenly and conveniently lost.
You really are that stupid? Ok then... Bullet proof vests weren't mentioned here to discuss the performance of these plastic rounds against them. They were mentioned to highlight how "energy dump" is not a good measure of damage for any round. See if you shoot someone with a bullet proof vest and the vest stops the bullet, that's a 100% energy dump, whereas if you take the vest off and the round passes clean through that's less than 100% energy dump, yet the latter case is much preferable if you want the target put down. It's the penetration that harms, far more than the energy.
Now people with functioning brains can take the understanding this example gave us, and apply that to the plastic bullet case even though there's no bullet proof vest there. So I'll spell it out for you. Regular bullets have less energy but penetrate deeply, so they're relatively good at putting your target down. The plastic bullets may deliver more energy but give you far less penetration, ie a less extreme version of the "with bullet proof vest" case even though the target is unarmored, and so the target isn't as badly hurt.
There, that should sort it out unless you're in full autism lockup over bullet proof vests having been mentioned in any way whatsoever despite OP looking into using these against unarmored targets, in which case nothing ever will.
> It's the penetration that harms, far more than the energy.
that arrow expended 100% of it's kinetic energy, you can tell by it still being in the bird
Shot placement also matters
Poor Hawk is like Wellp Im dead! One more last glance at the world and soon Ill be covered with ants. Thanks kid it's been real! Tell my wife and kids I love em!
the first line of OP says "against unarmored targets" dipshit
Are you actually retarded? I'm not that anon but his premise is clear enough, just transferring a bunch of energy won't kill if it doesn't have the penetration to reach vital organs.
his premise is him whining because someone is sticking to OP's conditions.
energy dump is a perfectly good measure depending on what you are looking for.
which is why we had a thread about the thunderzap teflon bullets that basically explode on flesh and gouge out a massive chunk.
How far are you willing to extend that logic? How much meat do you think you could blow off someone's chest without perforating their heart or lungs without dropping them immediately?
a 5.56 can collapse your lungs and vessels with no penetration
No, it can’t.
This is a somewhat obtuse, pedantic point. We all understand that when people refer to energy transfer they're universally referring to the energy being transferred on an area the width of a bullet, inside the target's tissues. The difference between that and what you're using as an example is extreme, night and day. Even the flimsiest bullet proof vest increases the effective surface area of the impact by an order of magnitude or more.
>We all understand that when people refer to energy transfer they're universally referring to the energy being transferred on an area the width of a bullet, inside the target's tissues
No, you just made that up. Even if we just look at penetration and the energy required for that, the tissue has to be pushed aside to make room for the bullet and other tissue must be shoved aside or compressed to make room for that. And you know damn well that people just say "energy dump", thinking energy transferred to the target in and of itself means a lot of damage was done with no further thought behind it. Now they also like to talk about the temporary cavity, so that's another thing telling us that the "area the width of a bullet" isn't what's implied.
Not that your way isn't also stupid as fuck. How much of the dumped energy actually goes into that bullet-width path? You don't have a fucking clue. How much of the energy dumped into that path is used to tear tissue and move it aside so the bullet can keep going? You don't have a fucking clue. How much is just lost to friction, how much fucks off into the rest of the body as mechanical waves... you don't have a fucking clue. And so this adding this won't rescue the "energy dump" approach, instead it just adds more unknowns to a theory that's fundamentally flawed. It's something made up to explain terminal ballistics by people who don't realize that they're missing half of the physics textbook, and who then don't put their model to the test to see if it actually holds up because they got some numbers to compare and that means it's all sciency and stuff, right?
Going the other way though we can make a qualitative assessment. Light and fast bullets penetrate poorly, which means they've spent less of their energy on actually getting somewhere and more of it on all the harmless stuff. How much? That'll require actual measurements to determine.
>Light and fast bullets penetrate poorly,
When you're shooting at humans and not nondescript blocks of matter in a physics textbook, wound circumference can matter just as much as depth. A bullet that punches through ten feet of meat cleanly does not do the damage that a bullet that leaves a ten inch deep, ten inch wide hole does.
Your body armor comparison is exceedingly retarded because the non lethality of BFD comes from how spread out the impact is and the fact that it doesn't happen inside your fucking chest.
>Light and fast bullets penetrate poorly
Explain SLAP, kinetic penetrators, shaped charges, etc...
Geometry being equal, the only difference between all polymer rounds and all lead rounds would be carry weight, which is a massive benefit to polymer as it's ~1/12 the density.
>Bullets made from plastic bar stock are comparable to tungsten/depleted uranium penetrators or explosively formed penetrators
yeah mate that's the rub, if you don't need shithuge velocity numbers you want the heaviest bullet you can get away with. The flash and noise of a gunshot(aside from lil' sonic boom on supersonics) is pressure that is not being used to accelerate the bullet. A heavier bullet has more inertia, which accelerates slower, which allows the gunpowder to more completely burn and generate more pressure behind the bullet before it exits the bore, thus imparting more energy on the bullet. This, combined with sectional density and aerodynamics, is why the best rifle rounds are at the higher end of what that particular cartridge/gun can handle. Fuddlore about 5.56 got people thinking that velocity is best, not realizing that fragmenting and tumbling bullets are 100% a Geneva convention workaround, and anyone who no shit hunts with .223 Remington uses... a heavy soft point. Like the 30 cal guys who shoot Elk. Funny.
Basically you're wrong as shit and got a lot to learn, but I'm glad you're here. Here's a fun trick, picrel. Some FMJ bullets have a small cavity just behind the tip, and you can sand off the tip to get to it. Don't get carried away tho, don't want the core to squirt out of the jacket halfway down the bore and give you a big boomie on the next round.
It's easily possible with a fast burning powder and a long barrel to completely burn the powder and lose energy from a too heavy bullet. You're right though about the fact that normally that doesn't happen.
Which is why you can take steps to remove that issue: burst disks. Instead of relying on pure momentum to hold the gas back, intentionally contain it inside the chamber up to a much higher pressure, and then release that pressure all at once.
That's the method for the REAL most powerful guns on the planet, which make normal artillery look like a joke
I'm going to propose an alternative to rupture discs that will still increase pressure and facilitate more complete powder burn even with exceptionally light bullets: a squeeze bore. Plastic projectiles even mitigate the largest point of concern, which is greatly accelerated barrel wear.
Nah, that's why we use lead.
Lightweight projectiles shed their energy much more quickly.
Its also why you see long distance shots being really fucking heavy .338/.50 caliber projectiles.
They're heavy enough to maintain momentum over those distances where as a lighter projectile would just slow down rapidly from air resistance.
>more tissue displaced
All penetration past the skin on the back of the target is wasted. The ideal bullet makes as big and ragged a wound track as possible that just barely gets to the back of the target.
whats the price for the ammo?
It's popular with me anon
shoot it at some hogs for science
I already shot some stuff with it
yeah, but a live hog is much more analogous to a person than a watermelon
I don't have access to live hogs ar the moment, but I do have 2nd hand reports of people being shot with T.H.O.R.
"We or he received reports, unconfirmed, of how well the .38 Special and .45 ACP worked. According to one report a pistol owner was attacked by a mugger in NYC and he/she shot the attacker in the shoulder, removing much of the flesh and muscle tissue. The would was peppered with white granular polymer pieces. The hospital staff was able to save the mugger’s life but he had to mug one armed after he recovered since the shot arm was “shot”.
The second report came out of South Africa. In this case the round was a .45. As the story goes an armed robber entered one of the 6X8 bars that are around SA and announced the holdup. The bartender/owner proceded to fire one shot center mass which caused the robber to drop dead. The story we received was that the flesh was separated from the ribs all around to the spine and the heart was puree. We could never get any police reports or conformation on any use of the rounds on people."
Considering those rounds were marketed by a conman who knowingly sold defective body armor for years, I would take any claims of their effectiveness with a massive grain of salt.
He only sold them. They were designed, produced, and likely tested by a different person. Obviously the stories are overblown a little but what can you do?
How much does a whole hog's head cost? You should get one of those and shoot it.
I'm not even sure where I'd get one. Nobody I know hunts hogs
Farmers and butchers sell pig heads.
Third for hog/cow shootin'
>3 times faster for the same muzzle energy
who are we fighting?
>against unarmored targets
Who are not behind a wall, car door, thicket/tree, kitchen shelf...
If your aim is to shoot a person then the slightly higher recoil and slower speed of a metal bullet doesn't matter.
If you plan to swap, first shoot thousands of rounds per gun to check for jamming issues.
I looked at OP's thumbnail and thought that it was a horse pussy fleshlight.
>Why is it that (dumb gimmick) never became popular?
They're like birdshot. They make a really nasty looking wound but aren't very effective at actually killing an assailant.
I used to post from my medical examination folder full of corpses killed by a single blast of birdshot from between 10 and 20 feet, but you gays kept reporting me.
I dislike seeing gore for the sake of gore but I'm always impressed by what a shotgun does to a person.
Obligatory Clint Smith...
How are these things with polygonal rifling?
These are the only types of 38 specials my local hardware store carries. I didn't know they actually did anything, I thought they were just a meme. I think I'd still prefer 38 hollowpoint.