It seems like there may be a property (ie: bullet weight, velocity, diameter, etc) that, in some extremes, will be the sole determining factor in what type of “make believe” round will be equal or less/more lethal than a control round. I’m not saying there is, but asking IF there is.
For example, let’s take a 45acp 230gr ball cartridge.
Let’s create a 1 foot diameter bullet that still weighs only 230gr and travels at the same velocity as the 45, thus creating the same energy. Are both rounds liable to create the same terminal results, even if the fantasy round is a 12 inch caliber bullet? Or are they going to be very different in their ability to destroy living tissue/material, thus, having one round more effective than the other even though they both have the same energy?
Another example would be taking, say, a 12.7x99mm and necking it down to take a .17cal bullet/BB, but also increasing the case capacity in order to produce the SAME EXACT amount of ft-lbs/joules as the 12.7mm. Would they both have the same effect on living tissue? How about barriers, etc? Or would one be clearly better than the other due to unforeseen factors?
No, there’s not. It depends on a plethora of variables.
Think about what you’re suggesting: a 1 ft diamter lead bullet weighing only 230 gr would be like a flying pancake. Of course they’re going to be different. The larger sectional density of the standard 230 gr .45 would make it far more effective.
Again, NO. A 600+gr .17 caliber projectile would probably be 3 feet long and probably break apart in flight.
I wasn’t talking about increasing the weight of a 17cal I was talking about increasing the velocity of a small and lightweight 17cal to the point where it meets the 50cals energy.
Are you truly serious with these questions?
Just a little mental exercise. I always thought that if two very different cartridges had the same energy on contact, on for example ballistics gelatin, they would behave similary in terms of damaging/displacing tissue. The examples I gave were very extreme.
I’m more interested in the discussion of the small 17cal being driven at velocities that would produce that same energy a standard 50cal BMG has and what that 17cal could do to ballistics gelatin compared to the standard 50cal round.
In broad terms, what the bullet does in the body, whether it yaws, deforms, or fragments, how deeply it penetrates, and what tissue it passes through are what determines wound severity, not kinetic energy, momentum, or velocity.
Sorry, I misread that part for your post. I would imagine that such a situation would disintegrate the .17 caliber bullet in flight due to the forces involved.
A one foot ball weighing 230grs would have the sectional density of a basketball, rendering it incapable of penetration at all but insane velocities. No penetration equals no damaged tissue. No damaged tissue equals no wound. Maybe you’ll get lucky and break their neck instead.
Wounds come from damaged tissue. That which isn’t penetrated/ripped apart by the projectile/a part of the projectile, isn’t wounded.
Very capable projectiles combined decent sectional density, decent energy, and a mechanism to use that energy to rip apart as much flesh as possible.
A good .45ACP hollow point, for example, has enough sectional density/energy to penetrate more than enough flesh to stop a threat (if well placed), and uses its expanded petals as a mechanism to use its energy to damage the largest amount of flesh possible.
A basketball going 850fps isn’t going to have enough sectional density, even with the same energy, to penetrate hardly anything… Blunt force trauma maybe… But it couldn’t be considered a gunshot wound.
Or are they going to be very different in their ability to destroy living tissue/material, thus, having one round more effective than the other even though they both have the same energy?