Wfn, wln, lfn?

[Whiterabbit]

I assumed that by wasted energy he meant energy transfered into the hillside rather than the animal. Not wasted as in disappears entirely. I also assumed by applied energy he meant "dissipated inside the animal", which I would imagine wouldn't be found in any science textbook.

It was a response that should have been tailored to my questions directed specifically at the terminal performance inside game, not just terminal performance with respect to the laws of physics.

I appreciated the response because the usual one is "you can't kill an animal deader" and that wasn't my question. Since it wasn't the response, it was helpful

[jwp475]

I am not sure how an incorrect explaination could be helpful.

Kinetic energy as expressed in Foot pounds of energy is a calculation of mass in motion as I explained in the post above is not transferred into the animal as is often stated


Get your hands on this book, it takes a book to get the full picture






A 22 caliber 55 grain bullet at 3600 FPS has a calculated 1583 FT Lb Energy. A 360 grain 45 caliber bullet at 1400 FPS has a calculated 1567 Ft Lb energy. If energy was the vehicle to predict lethality then the 22 caliber would be slightly better, but it ain't the one that I am picking to stop the enraged grizzly charge to save my bacon.


Trying to explain how a bullet creates the wound channel by using "energy" to explain is just not correct

[Whiterabbit]

I am not sure how an incorrect explaination could be helpful.

Often times I ask questions to get information I use to lead me down a path of action/experimentation, not to be handed an answer on a plate to regurgitate. What can get frustrating is when people try to solve my problems when that wasn't the point of my questioning. So how can an incorrect explanation be helpful? It can be helpful when the result is giving me direction, rather than an answer.

I make no comment on this specific case, particularly if ANYONE's explanation of anything in this thread is right or wrong, I'm just reading and enjoying. My post here only mentions my thought process in general, and my response to how any explanation, incorrect or not, can be helpful to me or anyone else.

[44man]

I assumed that by wasted energy he meant energy transfered into the hillside rather than the animal. Not wasted as in disappears entirely. I also assumed by applied energy he meant "dissipated inside the animal", which I would imagine wouldn't be found in any science textbook.

It was a response that should have been tailored to my questions directed specifically at the terminal performance inside game, not just terminal performance with respect to the laws of physics.

I appreciated the response because the usual one is "you can't kill an animal deader" and that wasn't my question. Since it wasn't the response, it was helpful

That is what I meant. After the animal has the lungs, heart, etc destroyed, there is no more need for the energy the boolit has left and that is transferred to penetration.
It does not matter if the boolit goes another 10 miles or through a tree, it has done the job first.
If you ever want to see the wrong way, use a gun with a lot of ME but the wrong bullet like ball or armor piercing on an animal. They kind of zip through an animal like a sharp stick.
Go the other way and shoot a deer with a 45 gr bullet at over 4100 fps and see what you get.
There is a right place and I will not show pictures of hammers, etc.
You understand that JWP actually agrees with me that it is where and how energy is applied and the ME doesn't mean anything if all of it is on the other side of a deer or on the skin only of one side.
JWP has used my picture of hard cast damage done to a deer, yes, it is my deer! The boolit might still be going for all I know.
This is far from "energy dump" because the boolit made moon orbit after doing he job.

[jwp475]

The use of the phrase "applied energy" and using energy in the wound chanell is where we do not agree. Energy is not what creates the wound channel. Read my post above

The part about a bullet exiting not being a problem is an agreement

[44man]

The use of the phrase "applied energy" and using energy in the wound chanell is where we do not agree. Energy is not what creates the wound channel. Read my post above

The part about a bullet exiting not being a problem is an agreement

John, a boolit still needs energy.
Applied energy just means it needs to be in the wound channel.

[jwp475]

John, a boolit still needs energy.
Applied energy just means it needs to be in the wound channel.

Kinetic energy is simply a calculation of mass in motion, obviously if a bullet has no energy then it has no motion. If you read my earlier post it explains clearly that a bullet cannot "apply energy" to or in an animal.

[jandbn]

This thread, as other threads often do, has veered off in tangent for the OP’s original question about nose design for best accuracy. That being said I apologize for adding more to the tangent now being discussed.

I recently asked and was given permission by the author of an essay to quote excerpts of his material in regards to terminal ballistics. The author agreed as long as links were posted to the material so the quotes are not taken out of context. I had hoped the author would agreed to including the links because I ain’t near as smart or able to communicate effectively as does the author. So in an effort to entice some of you to read the essay, I hope the quoted tidbits will whet the appetite enough to want to learn more. This essay is by far the most thorough resource of terminal ballistics I have found on line. A huge added plus is that the author is a hunter and seasoned shooter. The author has even poured his own and visited CB on occasion for load data!

The name of the essay is “Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories: The Mechanics of Terminal Ballistics”. It is written by an engineer. The link to the essay is here: http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b.../wounding.html. Many noted folks are mentioned in the essay. To name a few, there are Whelen, O’Connor, Taylor, Aagaard, Fackler, Linbaugh, and Veral Smith. Some of these notable folks’ information is supported, some, maybe not so much.

As would be expected of an engineer, the essay is to the point. There is a lot of data, both written and pictorial to mull over and terminology in the essay which may help alleviate misunderstanding and semantics in our threads/posts. A few of the common terms used in the essay are penetration, cavitation, momentum, meplat, and energy. However, with the exception of Section V. Analytical Modeling of Terminal Ballistics, the terminology is defined in understandable scientific terms, some of which we should be using in our posts to help ward off miscommunication and the ensuing squabbles that follow. Don't get me wrong, I know that there are some here who do understand the terms and terminal ballistics. This information is for those that may be unfamiliar with or just want to know.

To possibly pique your curiosity and which some may consider as blasphemy, there are statements such as “In a word, stopping power is a myth” and “hydrostatic shock is an oxymoron.” Included in the essay is superb penetration data from multiple sources. There is much much more for the reading and includes citations to the information and data as well as links to other resources.

In Section I Introduction of the essay the author provides details of his day job. “I am a mechanical engineer by profession and employed in the defense industry as an analyst and designer of anti-armor lethal mechanisms (ie, warheads and penetrators). Terminal ballistics is both my hobby and my profession.” In my unqualified opinion, I believe that the author’s day job sufficiently qualifies him as more than competent to write the essay and for us utilize it for our purposes. One other particularly meaningful partial statement at the end of the Introduction is “two physically equivalent wound tracks in a game animal will have an equivalent effect, no matter how different were the kinetic energies or other physical attributes of the bullets which caused them”. Another partial statement is “the hole caused by a bullet is its only measure of lethality”. There is an exception referenced in this last statement, so to clarify the intent, the Introduction will need to be read.

There are five more sections with subsections in the essay. Some of the titles of the subsections are not necessarily what you may think when you read the title! In regards to this tangent of the thread, one of the more relevant subsections would be the Mechanics of Penetration although the Relationships of Force, Momentum and Energy subsection would be applicable too. For that matter, there is much more pertinent information in other sections which relate to this tangent.

There is way to much good stuff to quote from the essay, but just to give an example in reference to the beginning of Section II, below are some quotes. Please keep in mind that these quotes are from paragraphs which must be read in their entirety to keep these statements in context!
“Rapid death is brought about only by brain death”
“The single most important factor in wound lethality is bullet placement.”
“brain death will likely occur prior to cessation of cardiac function; the time required for brain functions to deteriorate to the point of unconsciousness”
“There is another mechanism of cardiac arrest that is less well understood”
“a violent wound to the lung tissue may create a tiny embolism that interrupts cardio-pulmonary function at a critical moment”
“sudden pressure resulting from the bullet's passage (through the heart?) coupled with the coincidence of the systolic peak of the blood pressure cycle may communicate up the arteries to the brain and produce, in effect, a ruptured cranial aneurysm”
“sharp cuts generally bleed more freely and longer than ragged, macerated wounds”
“Based upon research to estimate the minimum lethality required to cause a game animal to collapse from hemorrhage within 10 seconds (or 100 yds) from a wound caused by an arrow (Jan Friis-Hansen, "Mesolithic Cutting Arrows: Functional Analysis of Arrows Used in the Hunting of Large Game", Antiquity, No. 64, 1990, pp. 494 - 504), the minimum lethal wound surface area for ideal performance by a bullet can be similarly estimated.”

I could go on and on, but rather than quote the essay endlessly, I would suggest reading the essay in its entirety to grasp its full potential and maybe learns something not already known. Having read the essay more than once, there is a lot there to absorb.

Prior to finding CB on the Internet, I had located this essay with a Google Search. I had major doubts about using a handgun again for hunting due a previous hunting experience with a bear. I have to give credit to the author’s essay for my opting to use a handgun again for hunting. This essay is a fantastic resource. Read what you will and form your own opinions and conclusions. I did!

The sections of the essay are:

II. The Mechanics of Terminal Ballistics
a. Mechanics of Lethal Wounding
b. Mechanics of Terminal Ballistics
c. Mechanics of Penetration
d. Mechanics of Cavitation
III. Myths, Misconceptions and Miscalculations
a. The Mythology of Wound Lethality
1. Kinetic Energy, Part I: "Energy Dump", "Overpenetration" and "Hydrostatic Shock"
2. Momentum and "Stopping Power"
3. Kinetic Energy, Part II: Thresholds of Wounding Potential Based on Kinetic Energy
b. Miscalculations of Lethality
1. Optimal Game Weight (OGW)
2. Taylor Knockout (TKO)
3. Lethality Index
4. Hornady Index of Terminal Standards (HITS)
5. Bekker Knock-Out Value (KOV) Formula
c. "When Good Physics Goes Bad"
1. Relationships of Force, Momentum and Energy
2. Bogus Ballistics
IV. Empirical Methods of Estimating Actual Terminal Effect
a. Performance of Non-Deforming Bullets
1. Flat-Nosed Handgun and Rifle Bullets
2. Round-Nosed Solid Rifle Bullets
b. Performance of Deforming Bullets
1. The Handloader-Sciuchetti Study
i. Observations from the Sciuchetti Data - The Effect of Impact Velocity
ii. Controlled Expansion versus Controlled Retained Weight
iii. Further Observations - Discontinuities Near the Hydrodynamic Threshold Velocity
2. Minimum Wound Dimensions
3. Medium-Bore Bullets
i. .308 Caliber
ii. .338 Caliber
iii. A Study of Sectional Density
iv. .348 Caliber
v. .375 Caliber
4. Small-Bore Bullets
i. Premium Bullets in .284 Caliber
ii. Another Study of Sectional Density: Small-Bore
iii. Too Light for Big Game? .224 and .243 Calibers
5. Handgun Bullets
6. Large-Bore Bullets
V. Analytical Modeling of Terminal Ballistics
a. Introduction
b. Fidelity in Modeling
c. A Simple Analytical Model of Bullet Penetration
VI. The Politics of Terminal Ballistics

I hope all the links are working! Enjoy.

[Lloyd Smale]

Lots of good info in that article. As typical i dont agree with every single word as ive seen differnt results with some of the loads and bullets on game animals that didnt really mirror his penetration testing and summerization. But ill say its one of the better articles on bullet performance ive seen.

[44man]

Kinetic energy is simply a calculation of mass in motion, obviously if a bullet has no energy then it has no motion. If you read my earlier post it explains clearly that a bullet cannot "apply energy" to or in an animal.

This is a total contradiction! Are you saying a boolit does not apply energy in an animal?
Do you mean a .30 cal stick pushed through slow has the same effect as a .300 mag?
Apply means "utilized", "to bring into contact with something", "put on or to."
If I take a tack hammer to a large nail, you are saying a sledge hammer does not apply more energy to the nail.
I do NOT understand what you are saying.
Do you have a new word for "apply?"
I have over 250 bow kills and the arrow does NOT apply energy but it does apply CUTTING to vital tissue.
If you shoot a gallon jug of water, does not the boolit "apply" energy to it?
Jandbn has provided much info that would educate you about applying energy.
My point is that you can "apply" energy at initial contact to do little after, you can "apply" energy during passage or you can "apply" all energy AFTER passage into the air or ground, maybe a tree.
Add enough energy like a .50 BMG and energy is "applied" at the initial contact, in passage and well beyond into anything it hits.
If I read you right, the .50 BMG does not apply energy, it pokes a .50 cal hole. Yeah, right! Shoot a deer with it and you need to learn to cook hooves.
The revolver has limited energy and that must be "applied" at the right place, INSIDE the animal.
I notice that you use a gun, not a sharp sick.
Some new bullets "apply" both energy and cutting with sharp, peeled jackets.
Maybe I am wrong and a slingshot will dump an elephant!

[jwp475]

This is a total contradiction! Are you saying a boolit does not apply energy in an animal?
Do you mean a .30 cal stick pushed through slow has the same effect as a .300 mag?
Apply means "utilized", "to bring into contact with something", "put on or to."
If I take a tack hammer to a large nail, you are saying a sledge hammer does not apply more energy to the nail.
I do NOT understand what you are saying.
Do you have a new word for "apply?"
I have over 250 bow kills and the arrow does NOT apply energy but it does apply CUTTING to vital tissue.
If you shoot a gallon jug of water, does not the boolit "apply" energy to it?
Jandbn has provided much info that would educate you about applying energy.
My point is that you can "apply" energy at initial contact to do little after, you can "apply" energy during passage or you can "apply" all energy AFTER passage into the air or ground, maybe a tree.
Add enough energy like a .50 BMG and energy is "applied" at the initial contact, in passage and well beyond into anything it hits.
If I read you right, the .50 BMG does not apply energy, it pokes a .50 cal hole. Yeah, right! Shoot a deer with it and you need to learn to cook hooves.
The revolver has limited energy and that must be "applied" at the right place, INSIDE the animal.
I notice that you use a gun, not a sharp sick.
Some new bullets "apply" both energy and cutting with sharp, peeled jackets.
Maybe I am wrong and a slingshot will dump an elephant!

You are wrong in the terms that you use for sure and certain.

I am going to re post my last post, because either you didn't read or you do not understand it. If it is a lack of under standing then maybe we can help

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "applied energy". What science is this based on? None that I am aware of.

In comment #-1 you state "Toss ME figures in the scrap heap" OK I am with you here, but you follow up with ", it is where energy is applied in an animal. Yes, energy is important or we would hunt with a sharp stick. Apply it wrong and you might do better with a sharp stick."

First let me point out the many people do very well with a sharp stick, I believe that you use them as well with great success. Next there are many type of energy such as electrical, stored, potential, thermal, kinetic and sound is also a form of energy. The wound channel can not be predicted by "foot pounds of energy". The wound channel is created by 1-direct applied pressure 2-the amount of hydraulic pressure created (the higher the velocity the higher the hydraulic pressure) and the amount of momentum transferred. The amount of "direct applied pressure in conjunction with the frontal area of the bullet accounts for the amount of crushed tissue. A large enough amount of "hydraulic pressure" will stretch the tissue past its elastic limits causing the tissue to rip apart and adding to the volume of the wound channel, all of this in conjunction with the "momentum transfer" makes up the volume of the wound channel and the depth of penetration (length of wound channel)

Energy is never lost, therefor cannot be wasted

In number 2 of your statement again you use the phrase "-It is applied energy, not wasted energy from quick expansion". The fact is quick expansion increase the frontal area of the bullet, thus increasing the area of "direct applied force and increase the area of "crushed tissue". By quickly expanding the momentum is transferred faster and penetration decreases dramatically when compared to a slower expanding projectile or minimally expanding projectile. This is why hard cast bullet achieve the deeper penetration. The wide me-plat hard cast or jacketed (as is the case with the Belt Mountain Punch Bullets) leave a relatively larger wound channel completely through the animal


In number 3- you again talked about wasted energy and I am at a loss as to how it is wasted?

The diagram of the ballistics pendulum shows us exactly what happens with "kinetic energy" in an inelastic collision" which is no conservation of "energy" in the collision. Since "energy" is never lost most of the "energy is transformed into other forms of "energy" mostly thermal, as well as other forms such as sound, etc.

Newton's 3 laws of motion deal with "MOMENTUM, MOMENTUM TRANSFERS, AND ACCELERATION, NOT ENERGY RELATIONSHIPS"

Energy in an INELASTIC COLLISION transforms to other forms of energy mostly thermal but also some goes to sound, etc as well. Thermal energy is heat and 1 Joule is equal to 0.73756 foot-pounds. This is why the Europeans ammo makers use Joules instead of Ft LB

DO a google search and learn about inelastic collision and then you will realize why when you make the claim of "applying energy" it is totally incorrect.

[44man]

Well, I never seen a boolit move anything it hit except steel where all energy is "applied" at the surface or a hard object that is small enough to move.
I seen Whit hit a pop can at 100 yards with his .500 JRH and it did not fall. When I hit it, it just fell off the rail.
What you show is transfer and change of energy, not what happens in an animal.
I have yet to see any deer hanging by strings but I assure you, it would never swing when hit.

[jwp475]

Well, I never seen a boolit move anything it hit except steel where all energy is "applied" at the surface or a hard object that is small enough to move.
I seen Whit hit a pop can at 100 yards with his .500 JRH and it did not fall. When I hit it, it just fell off the rail.
What you show is transfer and change of energy, not what happens in an animal.
I have yet to see any deer hanging by strings but I assure you, it would never swing when hit.

No I show a transfer of momentum and direct applied force combined with hydraulic pressure. The higher the momentum the more the steel moves. A 22 caliber bullet at 3600 FPS has more energy than a 240 grain 44 caliber bullet at 1400 FPS. The 44 caliber 240 grain bullets has more momentum and will move the steel a greater amount.

Shoot a ground squirrel with a 40 grain 22 caliber bullet 4000 FPS and it will blown a the ground squirrel into small pieces. Shoot the ground squirrel with a 45 caliber 500 grain bullet at 2000 FPS and it will not blown the squirrel into as many small pieces because the slower projectile creates lees hydraulic pressure despite has over twice the amount of kinetic energy

The can did not fall over because the bullet was able to penetrate without encountering enough resistance to be knock over. A thicker wall will create enough resistance to knock the can over

[44man]

No I show a transfer of momentum and direct applied force combined with hydraulic pressure. The higher the momentum the more the steel moves. A 22 caliber bullet at 3600 FPS has more energy than a 240 grain 44 caliber bullet at 1400 FPS. The 44 caliber 240 grain bullets has more momentum and will move the steel a greater amount.

Shoot a ground squirrel with a 40 grain 22 caliber bullet 4000 FPS and it will blown a the ground squirrel into small pieces. Shoot the ground squirrel with a 45 caliber 500 grain bullet at 2000 FPS and it will not blown the squirrel into as many small pieces because the slower projectile creates lees hydraulic pressure despite has over twice the amount of kinetic energy

The can did not fall over because the bullet was able to penetrate without encountering enough resistance to be knock over. A thicker wall will create enough resistance to knock the can over

All of this is correct of course.
But neither scene can be compared to big game. The light fast .22 can blow on the surface removing a large patch of hide and not get inside.
The .45 is what to use but either way, it still all depends on where the boolit does it's work and is only what I have tried to explain.
The application of what ever you choose to call it, energy, momentum, pressure, heat, whatever. It must be applied to the vitals or it is useless.
I know you don't like the word but I can find none better.
Like when you screwed up in school and had the paddle "applied" to your posterior!
Energy is also the best word because it encompasses any transitions it might make.
I know you agree with me 100% on making a boolit work where it needs to work and you just argue over my choice of words. Never have I read about any bullet, boolit or round listed by "momentum." Animals do not feel that and are never blown off their feet. I did knock a woodchuck off it's feet with a .50 RB once but most just stay in place while pieces blow in all directions.
Momentum works on steel and is of use for IHMSA as is "dell time" on steel because the slower the bullet explodes, the more force exerted can knock the targets over.
Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. Since a 200# deer weighs 2800 X more then a 500 gr boolit and boolit momentum is expressed as pounds- seconds, it is of little use.

[jwp475]

Energy is not the best word, because it is incorrect. A 200 pound man that runs a 10 second 100 yards is running 30 feet per second and that equates to 2798 Foot pounds of kinetic energy. Yet there are professional football players that are bigger and faster that hit each other every Sunday during the season without killing each other. If energy was the proper term then the morgues would be full of football players after each game and this is not the case

Penetration and holes through the vitals case by "direct applied force" aloung with "momentum transfers' AND 'hydraulic pressure" creates the wound channel through the vitails

Transfering momentum moves tissue

[44man]

All in definitions. It takes energy to overcome inertia and it is stored as kinetic energy along with energy developed with momentum.
Now, you call it force when contact is made with something. What is the definition of "force?" "ENERGY!"
Momentum is the quantity of motion.
Energy is where it starts and what is stored to be released.
A football player can disperse all his stored energy into the ground by stopping fast.

[jwp475]

All in definitions. It takes energy to overcome inertia and it is stored as kinetic energy along with energy developed with momentum.
Now, you call it force when contact is made with something. What is the definition of "force?" "ENERGY!"
Momentum is the quantity of motion.
Energy is where it starts and what is stored to be released.
A football player can disperse all his stored energy into the ground by stopping fast.

ENERGY ISN'T WHAT MAKES THE OBJECT AT REST MOVE AFTER IMPACT, the ballistic pendulum drawing illustrates this very clearly






If it were energy then the arc distance of the pendulum swing would measure the energy transfer instead it is MOMENTEUM that is transfered and measured.

Look at the drawing closely it is very clear

Newton's 3 laws of motion deal with momentum, momentum transfers and acceleration. NOT ENERGY RELATIONSHIPS
Newton's First Law of Motion:
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

This we recognize as essentially Galileo's concept of inertia, and this is often termed simply the "Law of Inertia".

Newton's Second Law of Motion:

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

This is the most powerful of Newton's three Laws, because it allows quantitative calculations of dynamics: how do velocities change when forces are applied. Notice the fundamental difference between Newton's 2nd Law and the dynamics of Aristotle: according to Newton, a force causes only a change in velocity (an acceleration); it does not maintain the velocity as Aristotle held.

This is sometimes summarized by saying that under Newton, F = ma, but under Aristotle F = mv, where v is the velocity. Thus, according to Aristotle there is only a velocity if there is a force, but according to Newton an object with a certain velocity maintains that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an acceleration (that is, a change in the velocity). As we have noted earlier in conjunction with the discussion of Galileo, Aristotle's view seems to be more in accord with common sense, but that is because of a failure to appreciate the role played by frictional forces. Once account is taken of all forces acting in a given situation it is the dynamics of Galileo and Newton, not of Aristotle, that are found to be in accord with the observations.

Newton's Third Law of Motion:


III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

This law is exemplified by what happens if we step off a boat onto the bank of a lake: as we move in the direction of the shore, the boat tends to move in the opposite direction (leaving us facedown in the water, if we aren't careful!).




http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...wton3laws.html

[jwp475]

All in definitions. It takes energy to overcome inertia and it is stored as kinetic energy along with energy developed with momentum.
Now, you call it force when contact is made with something. What is the definition of "force?" "ENERGY!"
Momentum is the quantity of motion.
Energy is where it starts and what is stored to be released.
A football player can disperse all his stored energy into the ground by stopping fast.

In classical mechanics, linear momentum or translational momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kg•m/s, or, equivalently, N•s) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object:

Like velocity, linear momentum is a vector quantity, possessing a direction as well as a magnitude. Linear momentum is also a conserved quantity, meaning that if a closed system is not affected by external forces, its total linear momentum cannot change. Although originally expressed in Newton's second law, the conservation of linear momentum also holds in special relativity and, with appropriate definitions, a (generalized) linear momentum conservation law holds in electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and general relativity. In relativistic mechanics, non-relativistic linear momentum is further multiplied by the Lorentz factor


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

[jwp475]

All in definitions. It takes energy to overcome inertia and it is stored as kinetic energy along with energy developed with momentum.
Now, you call it force when contact is made with something. What is the definition of "force?" "ENERGY!"
Momentum is the quantity of motion.
Energy is where it starts and what is stored to be released.
A football player can disperse all his stored energy into the ground by stopping fast.

The powder in the case is "potential energy"
A compressed spring is "stored energy"

The ignition of the powder by the primer releases the stored energy in the form of hot expanding gas that propels the bullet down and out of the barrel toward the intended target. The bullet once in motion has "kinetic energy"

In physics, a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape. In other words, a force is that which can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate, or which can cause a flexible object to deform. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or pull. A force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity. Newton's second law, F = ma, was originally formulated in slightly different, but equivalent terms: the original version states that the net force acting upon an object is equal to the rate at which its momentum changes.[1]

Related concepts to force include: thrust, which increases the velocity of an object; drag, which decreases the velocity of an object; and torque which produces changes in rotational speed of an object. Forces which do not act uniformly on all parts of a body will also cause mechanical stresses,[2] a technical term for influences which cause deformation of matter. While mechanical stress can remain embedded in a solid object, gradually deforming it, mechanical stress in a fluid determines changes in its pressure and volume.[3][4]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force


Definition: Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work. Energy exists in several forms such as heat, kinetic or mechanical energy, light, potential energy, electrical, or other forms.
According to the law of conservation of energy, the total energy of a system remains constant, though energy may transform into another form. Two billiard balls colliding, for example, may come to rest, with the resulting energy becoming sound and perhaps a bit of heat at the point of collision.

The SI unit of energy is the joule (J) or newton-meter (N * m). The joule is also the SI unit of work.



http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/energy.htm

[44man]

Well John, you are entirely correct.
The stored energy overcomes the bullet inertia once released, same as the football player unleashing his muscles. Then it does indeed change to kinetic energy and the bullet and football player then gain momentum as they speed up and that adds more kinetic energy.
But once stopped the energy is released and can change form. The slowing bullet transforms energy into pressure, heat, whatever but loses all momentum if it stops. The heavy boolit that passes through maintains some momentum until it stops but it does not increase as the boolit slows, it is reduced which bleeds off energy that can be applied.
Momentum is lost as the boolit slows with distance, outside influence etc. A boolit constantly loses energy from the instant it leaves the barrel. It loses the stored energy behind it and it loses momentum. That is a loss of kinetic energy during flight.
The key is to have enough at the animal.
It is fun going back and forth and I don't know why we do it!
But I think everyone here knows what we are talking about.
I am willing to agree to disagree over use of terms-----it is still ENERGY!
Oh I forgot, an inelastic collision is against something so hard or heavy it does not move. The football player slamming into the goalpost.