AR-15 in 10mm Auto [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : AR-15 in 10mm Auto


PimpStick
07-10-2012, 19:47
This will be my next purchase! Any idea where I can find one?

http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.pbv.v8.tpl&product_id=54&category_id=29&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=5

NeverMore1701
07-10-2012, 20:00
Yay another rifle firing a pistol round!


Pass.

WoodenPlank
07-10-2012, 20:09
Yay another rifle firing a pistol round!


Pass.

And it's an Oly to boot... :faint:

Tim151515
07-10-2012, 20:16
ummm why not just get 556? its more powerful and cheaper...not to mention more readily available mags and such..

countrygun
07-10-2012, 20:38
ummm why not just get 556? its more powerful and cheaper...not to mention more readily available mags and such..


I looked at one myself. It;s been around a while. I couldn't find any good reviews on the Oly so I gave it up.

Tim, do you always measure "power" by some numbers, in someones book of formulas?

Have you ever looked at the specs for a 10mm coming out of a 16" barrel?

There is some simple, figure it out in your head using common sense, kinda math that makes a person question your definition of "power"

The 10mm with a 200 gn bullet has somewhere between 2,5 to well over 3x the weight depending on the bullet weight, the 10mm has a bit less that 2x the diameter, the only thing the .223 has is around one third more velocity depending on bullet weight, the heavier the bullet the lower the velocity gap,

Again, if some other formula trips your trigger and makes you feel fuzzy, great. But if I had to drop a POed bear with one shot, or take a bet on which bullet wouid stop a deer at 100yds with a raking shot,I'm going with the 10mm.

Metal Angel
07-10-2012, 20:47
I can understand an AR15 in 9mm because 9mm is cheap to shoot. .40smith costs almost as much as 5.56, so that wouldn't be worth it... 10mm? Holy crap. It's like paying for a .308 and not getting it.

MarcDW
07-10-2012, 20:59
If you cary a 10mm pistol I can understand that you want to stay with one caliber.
Otherwise why would you want an expensive 2nd caliber like this?
Also, if I would get something like this, I would register it as SBR and get it down to somewhere between 9-12".

NeverMore1701
07-10-2012, 21:06
I looked at one myself. It;s been around a while. I couldn't find any good reviews on the Oly so I gave it up.

Tim, do you always measure "power" by some numbers, in someones book of formulas?

Have you ever looked at the specs for a 10mm coming out of a 16" barrel?

There is some simple, figure it out in your head using common sense, kinda math that makes a person question your definition of "power"

The 10mm with a 200 gn bullet has somewhere between 2,5 to well over 3x the weight depending on the bullet weight, the 10mm has a bit less that 2x the diameter, the only thing the .223 has is around one third more velocity depending on bullet weight, the heavier the bullet the lower the velocity gap,

Again, if some other formula trips your trigger and makes you feel fuzzy, great. But if I had to drop a POed bear with one shot, or take a bet on which bullet wouid stop a deer at 100yds with a raking shot,I'm going with the 10mm.

Someone needs to brush up on their ballistics...

Tim151515
07-10-2012, 21:23
I looked at one myself. It;s been around a while. I couldn't find any good reviews on the Oly so I gave it up.

Tim, do you always measure "power" by some numbers, in someones book of formulas?

Have you ever looked at the specs for a 10mm coming out of a 16" barrel?

There is some simple, figure it out in your head using common sense, kinda math that makes a person question your definition of "power"

The 10mm with a 200 gn bullet has somewhere between 2,5 to well over 3x the weight depending on the bullet weight, the 10mm has a bit less that 2x the diameter, the only thing the .223 has is around one third more velocity depending on bullet weight, the heavier the bullet the lower the velocity gap,

Again, if some other formula trips your trigger and makes you feel fuzzy, great. But if I had to drop a POed bear with one shot, or take a bet on which bullet wouid stop a deer at 100yds with a raking shot,I'm going with the 10mm.

sorry...i guess the only formula I was using was the messes I had to clean up after in afghan, combined with the fact that 10mm is just a handgun round.

WoodenPlank
07-10-2012, 21:27
Also, am I the only one that sees bad things coming from a straight blowback gun in 10mm?

MrMurphy
07-10-2012, 21:56
"Blowback 10mm" and "Olympic" are three things that should never occur in the same sentence.

I'd rather have a .308 or 5.56mm AR. Failing that, a .450.

glock2740
07-10-2012, 21:57
... the 10mm is just a handgun round.
The Tommy gun was based on just a handgun round, and in .45ACP at that, which is alot less powerful than the 10mm. I think a 10mm AR would make more sense than an AR in one of the .458 SOCOM or .50 Beowulf loads IMO. :dunno:

Decguns
07-11-2012, 07:50
There's a reason why armies don't issue Tommy Guns, or any pistol caliber submachineguns now days, the assault rifle is superior. The 10MM in a carbine is rediculous expensive to feed. Might as well be shooting $5 bills.

You can't find any good reviews on Oly rifles because they suck. I got so tired of sending them back for repairs, that I just quit stocking them in the shop 15 years ago.

uptomyneck
07-11-2012, 08:53
Typical GT. Nobody owns one, yet they **** all over it.

I own one that I pig hunt with. It's on my M16A2 lower. With Doubletap 200 gn, it stones pigs from over 100 yards. The upper operates fine with no issues and is accurate.

I'm getting the barrel cut to 10" so I can use a can. So then I'll have a full auto 10mm suppressed. Yea, that must suck.

ronin.45
07-11-2012, 09:08
If you cary a 10mm pistol I can understand that you want to stay with one caliber.
Otherwise why would you want an expensive 2nd caliber like this?
Also, if I would get something like this, I would register it as SBR and get it down to somewhere between 9-12".

Agreed

And no oly!

MarcDW
07-11-2012, 09:24
...a full auto 10mm suppressed. Yea, that must suck.

I am not sure if this is a federal restriction, but at least in Maine hunting with a machine gun is a big no no.
Beside, you can only hunt with a 5 round magazine.
Just saying ....

fnfalman
07-11-2012, 09:36
The 5.56mm round averages around 1200-ftlb(f) of kinetic energy at the muzzle.

What's the 10mm with its velocity out of 16" barrel? If you have the velocity, it's simple to figure out: KE = 1/2(mass x velocity ^2). Gotta convert bullet weight from grain to poundage (5200-gr/lb ?).

Or get the velocity of the 10mm out of a 16" barrel and go a website where all you have to do is plug in the velocity and weight, and the kinetic energy calculation magically appears.

I don't know what the velocity of the 10mm is out of a 16" barrel, but whatever it is it has a long way to go in order to make 1200-ftlb(f) of kinetic energy at the muzzle.

fnfalman
07-11-2012, 09:37
Typical GT. Nobody owns one, yet they **** all over it.

I own one that I pig hunt with. It's on my M16A2 lower. With Doubletap 200 gn, it stones pigs from over 100 yards. The upper operates fine with no issues and is accurate.

I'm getting the barrel cut to 10" so I can use a can. So then I'll have a full auto 10mm suppressed. Yea, that must suck.

I may not have owned a 10mm upper, but I've owned an Olympic Arms XM-15 before. Never again.

Bren
07-11-2012, 09:56
If you cary a 10mm pistol I can understand that you want to stay with one caliber.

If you're a cowboy and have to carry all of your ammo in a saddlebag, including bullet casting and reloading equipment.

If you don't carry portable reloading equipment, the 1-caliber thing doesn't make any sense at all. A handgun is carried for portability, at the expense of power/range. It's silly to then sacrifice the power and range in your long gun, jsut so you can reload them from the same box.

Tony Rumore
07-11-2012, 10:07
I had a 10mm Oly about 10 years ago. It ran flawless.

Tony

uptomyneck
07-11-2012, 10:16
I am not sure if this is a federal restriction, but at least in Maine hunting with a machine gun is a big no no.
Beside, you can only hunt with a 5 round magazine.
Just saying ....

In Texas, you can hunt pigs from helicopters with a mini-gun at night.

matt_lowry123
07-11-2012, 12:00
In Texas, you can hunt pigs from helicopters with a mini-gun at night.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Hell yeah!!! That's the set up I need!!

Mountain10mm
07-11-2012, 12:23
A 200 grain bullet leaving the barrel at 1600ft/s = 1137ft.lbs. Power factor (PF) = 320
A 200 grain bullet leaving the barrel at 1400ft/s = 870ft.lbs. PF= 280
A 180 grain bullet leaving the barrel at 1600ft/s = 1022ft.lbs. PF = 288
A 180 grain bullet leaving the barrel at 1400ft/s = 783ft.lbs. PF = 252

A 55 grain bullet leaving the barrel at 3200ft/s = 1250ft.lbs. PF = 176
A 55 grain bullet leaving the barrel at 2900ft/s = 1026ft.lbs. PF = 160
A 77 grain bullet leaving the barrel at 3200ft/s = 1750ft.lbs. PF = 246
A 77 grain bullet leaving the barrel at 2900ft/s = 1438ft.lbs PF = 223

PF is a simplified measure of momentum (grain- ft/s, as opposed to lb.- ft/s) often used in competition shooting to make sure ammunition is of similar "energy" as other competitors. In any case, it is a comparable measure of momentum which plays a key part in penetration and long distance velocities. Bullets with higher power factors will retain velocity at longer ranges better than lower power factor bullets. Obviously, the velocity issue doesn't take into account ballistic coefficients, in which the 5.56 has the advantage.
If a 10mm (.40cal) bullet can be pushed out of a 16” barrel at 1600ft/s, I think it would be more devastating than a 5.56/223 within 150yards, especially for heavier targets such as people, deer, pigs, even black bear. After 150 yards, I would imagine the more streamlined 5.56 would help it fly flatter and more accurate. In the ballistics world, the 223 Remington is considered a varmint cartridge – though it has been successfully used in combat situations and even big game. It’s a slow and heavy verses light and fast argument – which seems to never be settled.

fnfalman
07-11-2012, 12:30
blah, blah, blah

I'm glad you didn't teach physics at my university.

Seriously, leave the science to the scientists and engineers. Just shoot the guns and stand there looking pretty.

Mountain10mm
07-11-2012, 12:42
I'm glad you didn't teach physics at my university.

Seriously, leave the science to the scientists and engineers. Just shoot the guns and stand there looking pretty.

Do you need the formulas?

fnfalman
07-11-2012, 12:46
Do you need the formulas?

No. You've shown me enough.

Mountain10mm
07-11-2012, 12:49
The 5.56mm round averages around 1200-ftlb(f) of kinetic energy at the muzzle.

Gotta convert bullet weight from grain to poundage (5200-gr/lb ?).



I feel the same. There are 7000 grains per pound, any engineer would know that or be able to reference it - even the heavy industrial ones.

cowboy1964
07-11-2012, 13:02
Have you ever looked at the specs for a 10mm coming out of a 16" barrel?


http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/10mm.html (http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/10mm.html)

NeverMore1701
07-11-2012, 13:07
But it's a bigger BOOOLET!


:upeyes:

Mountain10mm
07-11-2012, 13:18
So tell us, what are some typical velocities?

I've never chronographed them, which I why I provided two different velocities. A .44 mag out of a 6 inch pistol may be 1000-1400ft/s and out of an 18" rifle, 1600-1800ft/s (based on my reloads and experience). That's a 400-600ft/s gain. If you conservatively estimate 50ft/s gain per inch of barrel, and you get 1200ft/s out of a 5 inch, 10mm, pistol barrel, that would be a gain of 550ft/s for a 16 inch, rifle barrel. At some barrel length the gains will decrease and then become negative - I don't know what that length is.

The point is, I agree with the OP, as a 10mm out of a carbine length barrel has significant merit - the FBI thinks so too. Their MP5's were (and maybe still are) 10mm.

NeverMore1701
07-11-2012, 13:36
I've never chronographed them, which I why I provided two different velocities. A .44 mag out of a 6 inch pistol may be 1000-1400ft/s and out of an 18" rifle, 1600-1800ft/s (based on my reloads and experience). That's a 400-600ft/s gain. If you conservatively estimate 50ft/s gain per inch of barrel, and you get 1200ft/s out of a 5 inch, 10mm, pistol barrel, that would be a gain of 550ft/s for a 16 inch, rifle barrel. At some barrel length the gains will decrease and then become negative - I don't know what that length is.

The point is, I agree with the OP, as a 10mm out of a carbine length barrel has significant merit - the FBI thinks so too. Their MP5's were (and maybe still are) 10mm.

Here's a question:

What did most agencies that issued the MP5 (in any caliber) replace it with? Why?

Mountain10mm
07-11-2012, 13:48
Here's a question:

What did most agencies that issued the MP5 (in any caliber) replace it with? Why?

It appears you are asking a rhetorical question and you already know the answer. Perhaps you can inform all of us. It would be interesting to see the economics of any agency firearm changes in your argument. Were the agency firearms changes based on effectiveness or economics or recoil, or?

Bren
07-11-2012, 14:03
It appears you are asking a rhetorical question and you already know the answer. Perhaps you can inform all of us. It would be interesting to see the economics of any agency firearm changes in your argument. Were the agency firearms changes based on effectiveness or economics or recoil, or?

I guess he figured pretty much anybody who has been shooting for more than a year or two already knows the answer to your questions. That's what I'd think.

fnfalman
07-11-2012, 14:03
I feel the same. There are 7000 grains per pound, any engineer would know that or be able to reference it - even the heavy industrial ones.

That's why I put the question mark. Some things are simply not important enough for a heavy industrial engineer to keep fresh in his mind.

However you really won me over with your discourse on power factor and momentum and comparable energies and power factor affecting downrange velocities. Which school of engineering or physics did you go to? Let me know so that I'd make sure no relatives of mine will attend the same alma mater as yours.

Mountain10mm
07-11-2012, 14:15
However you really won me over with your discourse on power factor and momentum and comparable energies and power factor affecting downrange velocities. Which school of engineering or physics did you go to? Let me know so that I'd make sure no relatives of mine will attend the same alma mater as yours.

If I made a mistake, I'll be the first to admit it, online or in person. I have no problem with that. Could you please point out where the math is incorrect?

Thanks.

fnfalman
07-11-2012, 14:17
If I made a mistake, I'll be the first to admit it, online or in person. I have no problem with that. Could you please point out where the math is incorrect?

Thanks.

I'm not talking about the math. Anybody can plug in some numbers into a formula easily found on google.

I take exception to your claim of PF is a simplified measure of momentum (grain- ft/s, as opposed to lb.- ft/s) often used in competition shooting to make sure ammunition is of similar "energy" as other competitors. In any case, it is a comparable measure of momentum which plays a key part in penetration and long distance velocities. Bullets with higher power factors will retain velocity at longer ranges better than lower power factor bullets.

Where do you even get this stuff from?

Mountain10mm
07-11-2012, 14:19
I guess he figured pretty much anybody who has been shooting for more than a year or two already knows the answer to your questions. That's what I'd think.

New MP5 in 10mm $5500+
New AR15 in 5.56 with police discount $1000

Is that the answer all of shooting for two years knows?

Mountain10mm
07-11-2012, 14:22
I'm not talking about the math. Anybody can plug in some numbers into a formula easily found on google.

I take exception to your claim of PF is a simplified measure of momentum (grain- ft/s, as opposed to lb.- ft/s) often used in competition shooting to make sure ammunition is of similar "energy" as other competitors. In any case, it is a comparable measure of momentum which plays a key part in penetration and long distance velocities. Bullets with higher power factors will retain velocity at longer ranges better than lower power factor bullets.

Where do you even get this stuff from?

Again, please advise what is incorrect.

fnfalman
07-11-2012, 14:30
Again, please advise what is incorrect.

Yes, you got the Power Factor correct. It's nothing more than the formula for Momentum. To call it a Power Factor (not you but the originators) is stupid in the first place, but leave that aside.

Comparing momentums isn't the same as comparing energies.

A standard 9mm ball load has about the same kinetic energy at the muzzle as the .45ACP plus or minus a few poundfeet of force. The 9mm's momentum doesn't even come close to the momentum of the .45ACP.

Momentum doesn't have squat to do with penetration. Penetration is all about kinetic energy, the size of the point of impact, and the composition of the projectile.

Same thing with velocity retention at extended range. Power Factor/Momentum has squat to do with it. Ballistic coefficient (which you mentioned), drag coefficient, inertia are some of the factors. Once again, the .45ACP has a lot more momentum than the 9mm, yet the 9mm has flatter and longer effective trajectory.

matt_lowry123
07-11-2012, 14:32
I'd want it to be able to hold more rounds. 18 is kind of weak!!

Mountain10mm
07-11-2012, 15:53
Yes, you got the Power Factor correct. It's nothing more than the formula for Momentum. To call it a Power Factor (not you but the originators) is stupid in the first place, but leave that aside.

Comparing momentums isn't the same as comparing energies.

A standard 9mm ball load has about the same kinetic energy at the muzzle as the .45ACP plus or minus a few poundfeet of force. The 9mm's momentum doesn't even come close to the momentum of the .45ACP.

Momentum doesn't have squat to do with penetration. Penetration is all about kinetic energy, the size of the point of impact, and the composition of the projectile.

Same thing with velocity retention at extended range. Power Factor/Momentum has squat to do with it. Ballistic coefficient (which you mentioned), drag coefficient, inertia are some of the factors. Once again, the .45ACP has a lot more momentum than the 9mm, yet the 9mm has flatter and longer effective trajectory.

Momentum isn't the same as energy, that's why energy was shown in quotes. At competitions they often refer to it incorrectly as "energy." Shall we get into the calculus derivations?
Momentum absolutely affects penetration (things in motion tend to stay in motion - Newton's 2nd law - the more mass, the more momentum, the more in motion it wants to stay, i.e. the more penetration), along with numerous other factors such as bullet construction, the target medium, etc. Penetration is NOT all about kinetic energy, not even close. Could you stop a train moving 1.5ft/sec.? Arrows have very low kinetic energies, but penetrate more than most bullets. It's also one of the reasons the long range shooters using 5.56 favor 77gr. or even 90gr. bullets. If it was all about flat trajectory (your argument) they would be using 45 or 55 grain bullets. Trajectory is not a measure of bullet effectiveness. Effectiveness starts when the bullet hits the target.

You have a few other things confused as well. You say "Momentum doesn't have squat to do with penetration," but then say, "Ballistic coefficient, drag coefficient, inertia are some of the factors...for velocity retention at extended range." Inertia is basically momentum, of which is as you conceded is power factor. Also, ballistic coefficient takes into account bullet mass as part of the calculations to determine the ballistic coefficient - again, because mass and momentum matter. If you know the ballistic coefficient, you don't even have to enter the bullet weight in most ballistics programs. Drag coefficient is the ballistic coefficient unless we are talking missiles or super large projectiles.

If it was all about kinetic energy for penetration, why do dangerous game hunters use large (400gr.+), heavy bullets? Why don't they shoot some 55grain solid at 4000 ft./s? Why is the 12 gauge slug so effective on large animals, it only has 1175 ft.lbs. of muzzle energy? (Obviously load dependent.) That's the same as a 5.56. I guess 5.56s are great bear stoppers too then.

countrygun
07-11-2012, 16:00
sorry...i guess the only formula I was using was the messes I had to clean up after in afghan, combined with the fact that 10mm is just a handgun round.


Well, it is I who obviously must apologize, my only experience comes with a skinning knife in my hands an comparing the damage, and how far the animals had to be tracked in the first place, that makes me consider such insignificant "pistol" rounds as being "effective" and the .223 as being "less than impressive".

I only know that I will not use my .223 on deer if I have a 10mm carbine available.

And yes, my Winchester .44 mag Trapper is just firing a handgun round, but I will take it before my mini-14. even though I am a fan of the Mini for lesser creatures like two-legged miscreants.

Angry Fist
07-11-2012, 16:17
As long as it ran right, it sounds like a fun gun. I can get 1600 out of a 4.6", so a 16 should be a hoot!

Foxtrotx1
07-11-2012, 16:52
How the hell are you getting a 200 grain round to 1600 FPS in a BLOWBACK rifle????

deguelo
07-11-2012, 17:49
There's a reason why armies don't issue Tommy Guns, or any pistol caliber submachineguns now days, the assault rifle is superior. The 10MM in a carbine is rediculous expensive to feed. Might as well be shooting $5 bills.

You can't find any good reviews on Oly rifles because they suck. I got so tired of sending them back for repairs, that I just quit stocking them in the shop 15 years ago.

i like the sig line, dec. indeed, god will know his own.....

deguelo
07-11-2012, 17:50
As long as it ran right, it sounds like a fun gun. I can get 1600 out of a 4.6", so a 16 should be a hoot!

two great sig lines in one thread...... dig the rancid, fist

PimpStick
07-11-2012, 19:55
ummm why not just get 556? its more powerful and cheaper...not to mention more readily available mags and such..

Because I already have two AR-15s (Armalite and Colt) and a M4 Bushmaster...

And I have 4 10mm handguns and love the round...

PimpStick
07-11-2012, 19:56
If you cary a 10mm pistol I can understand that you want to stay with one caliber.
Otherwise why would you want an expensive 2nd caliber like this?
Also, if I would get something like this, I would register it as SBR and get it down to somewhere between 9-12".

True...but I already have 4 10mms and cost not really an issue.

PimpStick
07-11-2012, 19:59
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/10mm.html

You can click at the top for ME

PimpStick
07-11-2012, 20:05
New MP5 in 10mm $5500+

If I had a class III I'd already have that bad-boy! I'd gladly pay $5500 for it!

PimpStick
07-11-2012, 20:07
Also, this is a "just for the hell of it" gun. Not for defense, hunting, etc...

Does anyone know if anybody other than Olympic makes a similar rifle?

WoodenPlank
07-11-2012, 20:41
If I had a class III I'd already have that bad-boy! I'd gladly pay $5500 for it!

In FA, I'm sure they are significantly more than that. The FA 9mm models go for well north of $10k. Semi-auto SBR clones start somewhere around $2500, depending on who you get to do the build, and where you can get parts from.

The paperwork headache and cost of the tax stamp are insignificant compared to the outright cost of the weapon.

WoodenPlank
07-11-2012, 20:44
Also, this is a "just for the hell of it" gun. Not for defense, hunting, etc...

Does anyone know if anybody other than Olympic makes a similar rifle?

In 10mm? Not very many. A pistol caliber carbine has two places where ti fits in well - a cheap, fun range toy, or as an SBR'd, lightweight offensive/defensive weapon. In that second role, though, it's easily eclipsed by the same platform in 5.56.

A pistol caliber carbine in 10mm really just doesn't have a niche to fill, IMO, especially with the headaches of special parts, special mags, etc.

fnfalman
07-11-2012, 22:29
Penetration is NOT all about kinetic energy, not even close.

What is the definition of Energy? The ability to do work. You don't do work with momentum. You do work with energy.

Inertia is basically momentum, of which is as you conceded is power factor.

Inertia is a character of mass. Also, I conceded nothing about momentum being a "power factor". I said that some morons decided to call it "power factor". Show me "power factor" in any physics or thermodynamics book.


If it was all about kinetic energy for penetration, why do dangerous game hunters use large (400gr.+), heavy bullets? Why don't they shoot some 55grain solid at 4000 ft./s? Why is the 12 gauge slug so effective on large animals, it only has 1175 ft.lbs. of muzzle energy? (Obviously load dependent.) That's the same as a 5.56. I guess 5.56s are great bear stoppers too then.

Since when I said kinetic energy alone is for penetration?

But then back again to the penetration thing. Penetration is Work. In order to do Work, you must have Energy. Where is Momentum even get into it?

If velocity isn't so important then why tank anti-armor rounds are sabot instead of one big ass heavy bullet?

fnfalman
07-11-2012, 22:39
Momentum absolutely affects penetration (things in motion tend to stay in motion - Newton's 2nd law - the more mass, the more momentum, the more in motion it wants to stay, i.e. the more penetration), along with numerous other factors such as bullet construction, the target medium, etc. .

I don't mean to nitpick but Conservation of Momentum is in Newton's First Law of Motion.

The Second Law of Motion is about Force.

The Third Law of Motion is about action and reaction.

fnfalman
07-11-2012, 22:50
If it was all about kinetic energy for penetration, why do dangerous game hunters use large (400gr.+), heavy bullets? Why don't they shoot some 55grain solid at 4000 ft./s? Why is the 12 gauge slug so effective on large animals, it only has 1175 ft.lbs. of muzzle energy? (Obviously load dependent.) That's the same as a 5.56. I guess 5.56s are great bear stoppers too then.

http://www.hornady.com/assets/files/ballistics/2012CatalogCenterSpread.pdf

.500 Nitro Express 570-grain only puts out a "mere" 5850-lbft of kinetic energy at the muzzle. Yeah, KE doesn't matter.

WayaX
07-11-2012, 23:15
I don't mean to nitpick but Conservation of Momentum is in Newton's First Law of Motion.

The Second Law of Motion is about Force.

The Third Law of Motion is about action and reaction.

Actually, to nit-pick more, the law of conservation of momentum isn't truly any of Newton's 3 well-known laws. It could be construed from the first law, but isn't exactly what the first law is addressing.

The amount of ballistic misinformation in this thread is ridiculous. A 10mm out of a 16" barrel is not going to out-perform a 5.56 round. 10mm has difficulty breaking the 1000 ft lb mark out of a 16" barrel. Almost all 5.56 rounds are pushing 1300 ft lbs or more. Penetration? Last I checked, 5.56 wins here, too.

I'll agree that "10mm" and "blow-back" don't go in the same sentence unless "blow-back" is preceeded by "roller-locking delayed" or the sentenced ends with "and then it blew up in my face".

The 10mm is not a mythical creature. It is a pistol round, just like the 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. Putting any of these into a rifle does not give it rifle round ballistics. Everyone is moving away from pistol-caliber sub-machine guns to short-barreled rifles. It isn't because of the money.

countrygun
07-12-2012, 00:30
Muzzle energy is not a terribly reliable measure of relative effectivness of different calibers. some calibers by dint of ballistic coefficient, or sectional density perform better than the charts on paper wpould indicate to the faithful. But rather than go into the examples I think there are some things on their face that make you go "whut?" when people start quoting muzzle energy as holy writ.

I used Chuck Hawkes tables because they were handy.

At 1357 lbs ME a 64 gn .223 is blown away by the .219 Zipper 55 gn @ 1412 ft/lbs

Even more interesting is, according to ME figures the .30 carbine 110 @ 967 is barely ahead of the .17 Remington with a 25 gn bullet with 906. Now I admit I have never seen a deer shot with a .17 Remington but I do know about hunting costal blacktails with a .30 carbine and soft/hollow points. I just have a suspicion that the gap between a .17 cal 25 gn bullet and a 119 .30 cal bullet might be a little bigger than the 61 lbs of energy would indicate.

I wonder why the ODFW doesn't consider the .17 Remington as suitable for hunting deer?

Now according to what we have heard here, the 10mm 200 gn bullet would struggle to break 1,000 which means it would only be a whisker above the 25 grain .17 Remington

I don't know about anyone else but that makes me say "whut?"

NeverMore1701
07-12-2012, 01:22
Actually, to nit-pick more, the law of conservation of momentum isn't truly any of Newton's 3 well-known laws. It could be construed from the first law, but isn't exactly what the first law is addressing.

The amount of ballistic misinformation in this thread is ridiculous. A 10mm out of a 16" barrel is not going to out-perform a 5.56 round. 10mm has difficulty breaking the 1000 ft lb mark out of a 16" barrel. Almost all 5.56 rounds are pushing 1300 ft lbs or more. Penetration? Last I checked, 5.56 wins here, too.

I'll agree that "10mm" and "blow-back" don't go in the same sentence unless "blow-back" is preceeded by "roller-locking delayed" or the sentenced ends with "and then it blew up in my face".

The 10mm is not a mythical creature. It is a pistol round, just like the 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. Putting any of these into a rifle does not give it rifle round ballistics. Everyone is moving away from pistol-caliber sub-machine guns to short-barreled rifles. It isn't because of the money.

Hell, at least it's entertaining....

Sendarr
07-12-2012, 02:15
The answer here is 300blk. Nice choice of bullet weights, works well in SBR, uses standard AR mags/brass/bolt. I like the 10mm, but I'd use this before a 10mm Oly.

NeverMore1701
07-12-2012, 02:22
The answer here is 300blk. Nice choice of bullet weights, works well in SBR, uses standard AR mags/brass/bolt. I like the 10mm, but I'd use this before a 10mm Oly.

I'd very much like a suppressed SBR in .300 someday.

Mountain10mm
07-12-2012, 06:15
Actually, to nit-pick more, the law of conservation of momentum isn't truly any of Newton's 3 well-known laws. It could be construed from the first law, but isn't exactly what the first law is addressing.

.
You guys are correct, it is Newtons first law. I had the syntax right, but not the reference wrong.

Mountain10mm
07-12-2012, 07:15
What is the definition of Energy? The ability to do work. You don't do work with momentum. You do work with energy.

Correct.

Inertia is a character of mass. Also, I conceded nothing about momentum being a "power factor". I said that some morons decided to call it "power factor". Show me "power factor" in any physics or thermodynamics book.

Forget I ever mentioned Power Factor - it was only mentioned to show a relative comparision of momentums.

Since when I said kinetic energy alone is for penetration?

But then back again to the penetration thing. Penetration is Work. In order to do Work, you must have Energy. Where is Momentum even get into it?

You mentioned momentum something like "it has squat" to do with penetration. You weren't all inclusive about KE. The fact is, anytime you have a moving mass, you have momentum. Some equations explain reactions better than others. I think momentum explains penetration better than KE. Feel free to disagree. Again, there are a lot of other factors such as bullet design, which I think we can both agree on.

If velocity isn't so important then why tank anti-armor rounds are sabot instead of one big ass heavy bullet?

Im not familiar with antitank rounds, but Id guess the goal of this round is to generate heat, which in turn, defeats the armor. Ill speculate, but I think theres a difference between an armored tank and a living thing in terms of how a bullet needs to perform.

Velocity can be very important, I never said it wasn't; the argument is between a .40cal/200grain bullet and 5.56. I still believe a .40cal/200grain bullet within 150 yards or so has merit in a 16" barrel platform - primarily because it is heavier than a 5.56. Plug its mass into whatever equation you want.

fnfalman
07-12-2012, 07:20
Muzzle energy is not a terribly reliable measure of relative effectivness of different calibers. some calibers by dint of ballistic coefficient, or sectional density perform better than the charts on paper wpould indicate to the faithful. But rather than go into the examples I think there are some things on their face that make you go "whut?" when people start quoting muzzle energy as holy writ.

You're right. Muzzle Kinetic Energy alone doesn't mean squat.

However, you need the Kinetic Energy to do the Work. From there you can worry about the mechanics of it - bullet composition, design, size, mass, aerodynamics shape, etc.

fnfalman
07-12-2012, 07:27
You mentioned momentum something like "it has squat" to do with penetration. You weren't all inclusive about KE. The fact is, anytime you have a moving mass, you have momentum. Some equations explain reactions better than others.
I think momentum explains penetration better than KE.

Is penetration considered to be Work? If not, then please explain to me what it is. If penetration is considered to be Work, then show me an equation to calculate for Work where momentum is even in it.

Im not familiar with antitank rounds, but Id guess the goal of this round is to generate heat, which in turn, defeats the armor. Ill speculate, but I think theres a difference between an armored tank and a living thing in terms of how a bullet needs to perform.

Penetrating or burning through hard armor versus ripping through flesh and shattering through bones are still Work. First Law of Thermodynamics - Conservation of Energy and Second Law of Thermodynamics - Entropy.

The mechanics of this is how engineers and ballisticians come up with bullet designs.

Velocity can be very important, I never said it wasn't; the argument is between a .40cal/200grain bullet and 5.56. I still believe a .40cal/200grain bullet within 150 yards or so has merit in a 16" barrel platform - primarily because it is heavier than a 5.56. Plug its mass into whatever equation you want.

ASSUMING that the bullet compositions are the same, right? A hard cast 10mm or ball 10mm is going to penetrate more than a hollowpoint or a softpoint 5.56mm.

Shoot a ball 10mm with copper jacketed lead and a 5.56mm with copper jacketed lead into soft tissues and see which one will go in more. My bet is the 5.56mm. Smaller projected area and higher velocity/higher kinetic energy.

Mountain10mm
07-12-2012, 07:35
Is penetration considered to be Work? If not, then please explain to me what it is. If penetration is considered to be Work, then show me an equation to calculate for Work where momentum is even in it.


GT'ers, here it is. Anytime anyone is ever confused about penetration, use this formula.

Work = Force x distance.

NeverMore1701
07-12-2012, 08:07
I can not believe that anyone is dumb enough to think a service level handgun round compares to a rifle round.

fnfalman
07-12-2012, 08:21
GT'ers, here it is. Anytime anyone is ever confused about penetration, use this formula.

Work = Force x distance.

Which is what? Could it be "Energy"?

fnfalman
07-12-2012, 08:26
I can not believe that anyone is dumb enough to think a service level handgun round compares to a rifle round.

But it has like mass and momentum and stuff.

NeverMore1701
07-12-2012, 08:45
But it has like mass and momentum and stuff.

"And stuff" apparently being the key attributes.

fnfalman
07-12-2012, 09:07
It's very simple:

Two bullets made out of the same composition, one bigger and slower, one smaller and faster. The smaller and faster one will penetrate more - will do more damage in all sorts of way. It's as simple as that.

The smaller and faster one will also go a lot further and faster downrange as well.

The Laws of Thermodynamics are indisputable. In order to do Work (penetrating, ripping, shredding, shattering, melting, whatever), you have to have Energy. Where do you get Energy from a bullet? Kinetic Energy. The higher the Kinetic Energy, the more capability to do more Work. All other things being equal, of course.

A frangible 5.56mm is obviously not going to penetrate more than a 10mm ball. But then a frangible 10mm is not going to penetrate more than a 9mm ball either, so obviously bullet design and composition matters.

But in the end, momentum still doesn't mean squat when it comes to penetration. That's because in order to penetrate; to do Work, you need Energy and not Momentum. any second year physics or engineering students can tell you this.

You can't cheat physics. You can play around with it; that's what engineers do, but in the end you can't cheat physics.

You want to figure out recoil? Use momentum. Impulse (which is what recoil is) is momentum in the opposite direction.

But what about 75-gr 5.56mm versus 55-gr 5.56mm? They're both the same diameter. One is not bigger than the other. Now is where engineering comes in and we can play with the size, shapes, center of gravity, sectional density, etc., in order to achieve the best ballistic coefficient.

But what if the 10mm ball is driven at high enough velocity to have the same Kinetic Energy as the 5.56mm ball? They both have the same potential to do the same amount of Work. This is where things get more interesting and the Second Law of Thermodynamics come into play. Which bullet will perform the Work more efficiently?

Mountain10mm
07-12-2012, 09:14
To the OP, I think we got a little off track here. Sorry about that. In the meantime, we've expanded our shooting knowledge and provided some great entertainment. Here's a summary:

Remington, Winchester, Hornady, and Speer are rewriting their ballistics programs based on the information presented in this thread.

Penetration = work = force x distance.

Force = energy

Therefore, all anyone needs to compare bullets, do ballistics, or determine penetration is:

penetration = 1/2 mass x velocity^2 x distance

Not quite sure what distance to use, but there it is. Don't know grains per pound, just guess. Momentum is somehow non-existent even though there is a moving object with mass...who cares anyway, it's a useless measure. Plus it's a service handgun round. Double useless thing. It's going against a rifle round...oooooh. (Never mind it's a varmint rifle round designed for a 20" barrel.) The handgun round has no chance at doing anything downrange. Never, ever, heard a compliant about the effectiveness of the rifle round being used in combat - ever. Numbers not related to KE are irrelevant. Next competition just say what your KE is to the official, screw recoil being equal for competitors, it's about KE. Tell the arrow it can't penetrate the elk because its KE is too low. Wind resistance, all you need to know is KE super simple. Forensics science with bullet wounds, simple, its work. Inertia counts but momentum doesn't. Division of Wildlife rules about minimum bullet weights and calibers for hunting big game - ludicrous - all you need is high energy. Most importantly, price has nothing to do with agency decisions in selecting firearms.

fnfalman
07-12-2012, 09:17
Force = energy


Once again, please let me know which school you matriculated from so that I'll make sure that my relatives stay away from it.

fnfalman
07-12-2012, 09:52
Division of Wildlife rules about minimum bullet weights and calibers for hunting big game - ludicrous - all you need is high energy. .

Actually, it is ludicrous. New Mexico's deer hunting requirement is .24 caliber minimum centerfire. Yet no minimum centerfire caliber requirement for bears.

I guess the deers are so tough that you need a .24 caliber requirement but bears are kitty cats and so frail that you can nail them with anything centerfire.

countrygun
07-12-2012, 10:01
It's very simple:

Two bullets made out of the same composition, one bigger and slower, one smaller and faster. The smaller and faster one will penetrate more - will do more damage in all sorts of way. It's as simple as that.




I am sorry but the wheels are off your cart.

Compare the 87 gn .250/3000 bullet to a 140 gn 6.5 Swede, The muzzle the Sweed is about 400 fps slower but penetrates the heck out of the lighter, faster, smaller bullet.

The same holds true in handgun bullets. A cast swc in .357 going 1,500 fps will not penetrate as deeply as an identically designed 240 gn bullet from a .44 mag going 1,200 fps.

WayaX
07-12-2012, 10:04
Once again, please let me know which school you matriculated from so that I'll make sure that my relatives stay away from it.

I'm guessing DeVry.

NeverMore1701
07-12-2012, 11:46
I'm guessing DeVry.

http://marketingtowomenonline.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451e86969e20120a6b19499970c-800wi

Angry Fist
07-12-2012, 15:32
:animlol:

Foxtrotx1
07-12-2012, 16:18
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/4/1/4/4140f53f66a68e92afec2389ba289e25.png

/thread

Jade Falcon
07-12-2012, 20:11
Tagged. What's wrong with Olympic Arms? Just curious.

WoodenPlank
07-12-2012, 20:23
Tagged. What's wrong with Olympic Arms? Just curious.

They don't exactly have a stellar reputation for making quality, reliable firearms.

fnfalman
07-12-2012, 22:52
They don't exactly have a stellar reputation for making quality, reliable firearms.

I had an Olympic Arms XM-15 back in the late 1980s/early 1990s. It had some sort of black paint on the gun instead of parkerization and the damn paint chipped off in short order.

It took no time for the upper and lower receiver connections to loosen up and rattled like crazy. Yeah, I carried some M16s that were rattly too, but they weren't brand new.

Gas key worked itself loose after a few hundred rounds fired. Firing pin broke in half.

I sold it off for a princely sum during the AWB.

id1otbox
07-12-2012, 23:57
I often hear that 30.06 Springfield is(should be) a minimum for hunting elk. Lets compare its KE to that of a 270 Winchester.

30.06: 168 grains at 2700 ft/s = 2718.88 ft-lbs
180 grains at 2700 ft/s = 2913.08 ft-lbs

270: 130 grains at 3200 ft/s = 2955.26 ft-lbs
140 grains at 3090 ft/s = 2967.55 ft-lbs

In both scenarios the 270 achieves a greater velocity and a greater KE. However, the power factor(weight*velocity/1000) for the 30.06 is greater in both scenarios.

What does this all mean?

I can also state a bunch of facts that mean absolutely nothing because in the end its all about personal preference. Both rounds have taken countless elk. I chose the 30.06 because I like a bigger boolet. Same reason I chose the 10mm and own a g20.

Bigger bullets are just more fun. I know a lot of the old timers around here like getting trigger time with .22lr but that just bores me.

10mm sub gun sounds like a yeck of a lot of fun to me.

NeverMore1701
07-13-2012, 00:13
I often hear that 30.06 Springfield is(should be) a minimum for hunting elk. Lets compare its KE to that of a 270 Winchester.

30.06: 168 grains at 2700 ft/s = 2718.88 ft-lbs
180 grains at 2700 ft/s = 2913.08 ft-lbs

270: 130 grains at 3200 ft/s = 2955.26 ft-lbs
140 grains at 3090 ft/s = 2967.55 ft-lbs

In both scenarios the 270 achieves a greater velocity and a greater KE. However, the power factor(weight*velocity/1000) for the 30.06 is greater in both scenarios.

What does this all mean?

I can also state a bunch of facts that mean absolutely nothing because in the end its all about personal preference. Both rounds have taken countless elk. I chose the 30.06 because I like a bigger boolet. Same reason I chose the 10mm and own a g20.

Bigger bullets are just more fun. I know a lot of the old timers around here like getting trigger time with .22lr but that just bores me.

10mm sub gun sounds like a yeck of a lot of fun to me.

My wife and her family have taken plenty elk with .260rem and 7mm-08. :dunno:

id1otbox
07-13-2012, 00:19
My wife and her family have taken plenty elk with .260rem and 7mm-08. :dunno:


Elk range in weight from 500lbs to 1300lbs :dunno:

I wouldn't take a bull Roosevelt elk with a .260rem but maybe that's just me :upeyes:



I believe you missed what I was really saying in my original post

NEOH212
07-13-2012, 02:42
AR-15 in 10mm Auto

:upeyes::upeyes::upeyes:

:faint:

owl6roll
07-13-2012, 03:51
A rifle is a rifle and a pistol (round) will never be a rifle, but whatever floats your boat and your wallet. It would be interesting at pistol distance, though.

MarcDW
07-13-2012, 03:58
A rifle is a rifle and a pistol (round) will never be a rifle...

You are right, you can't help just with a longer barrel a pistol caliber to a rifle performance.
However, you are a lot more accurate on distance and you use the full potential of the pistol cartridge this way.

Mountain10mm
07-13-2012, 11:46
Be careful there, Dennis, or is that a false name too? You implied in thread #68 that Force was energy, I was only sarcastically deriving the importance of KE, based on your numerous posts. Don't you need to be a PE to call yourself an engineer in CA and NM? PM me your license number and all is well.

Originally Posted by Mountain10mm
GT'ers, here it is. Anytime anyone is ever confused about penetration, use this formula.
Work = Force x distance.
Which is what? Could it be "Energy"?

Foxtrotx1
07-13-2012, 11:50
Be careful there, Dennis, or is that a false name too? You implied in thread #68 that Force was energy, I was only sarcastically deriving the importance of KE, based on your numerous posts. Don't you need to be a PE to call yourself an engineer in CA and NM? PM me your license number and all is well.

Originally Posted by Mountain10mm
GT'ers, here it is. Anytime anyone is ever confused about penetration, use this formula.
Work = Force x distance.

Now you are just being immature.

How can a round contained in a pistol out do a round that can't be contained in a pistol?

And you know that energy is 1/2 mass x (velocity^2) right?

Can you tell me what the bigger factor in that equation is? I think a 6th grader could.

countrygun
07-13-2012, 11:51
Elk range in weight from 500lbs to 1300lbs :dunno:

I wouldn't take a bull Roosevelt elk with a .260rem but maybe that's just me :upeyes:



I believe you missed what I was really saying in my original post


A whole lot of the large animals in that range are taken in Europe with the 6.5X55 Mauser, a round that is almost identical in performance althought they may use a slightly heavier bullet at less velocity. In Sweden and Norway they consider the 6.5x55 the same way we consider the 30-06.

Mountain10mm
07-13-2012, 11:58
Now you are just being immature.

How can a round contained in a pistol out do a round that can't be contained in a pistol?

And you know that energy is 1/2 mass x (velocity^2) right?

Can you tell me what the bigger factor in that equation is? I think a 6th grader could.

Hey, I think you missed the point on this one. It might be worth re-reading the thread from the beginning. I am well aware of KE, P, BC, whatever else. My point in all of this is that a 10mm/200grain bullet at 1600fps (assuming that's a realistic number-which is debatable) out of a 16" barrel, has merit in some hunting and self-defense situations. That's it. We got a little off track, and the kick below the belt was about the school. I kicked back.

WarEagle32
07-13-2012, 11:59
I'll take a .223 with Barnes Triple shocks over any 10mm auto I've seen at any distance!

fnfalman
07-13-2012, 12:05
I often hear that 30.06 Springfield is(should be) a minimum for hunting elk. Lets compare its KE to that of a 270 Winchester.

30.06: 168 grains at 2700 ft/s = 2718.88 ft-lbs
180 grains at 2700 ft/s = 2913.08 ft-lbs

270: 130 grains at 3200 ft/s = 2955.26 ft-lbs
140 grains at 3090 ft/s = 2967.55 ft-lbs

In both scenarios the 270 achieves a greater velocity and a greater KE. However, the power factor(weight*velocity/1000) for the 30.06 is greater in both scenarios.

What does this all mean?

I can also state a bunch of facts that mean absolutely nothing because in the end its all about personal preference. Both rounds have taken countless elk. I chose the 30.06 because I like a bigger boolet. Same reason I chose the 10mm and own a g20.

Bigger bullets are just more fun. I know a lot of the old timers around here like getting trigger time with .22lr but that just bores me.

10mm sub gun sounds like a yeck of a lot of fun to me.

In this case, the bullet sizes and kinetic energies (assuming that bullet designs are the same) are too close to each other to really make a real difference.

A fat, slow 10mm round comoared to a small and fast 5.56mm round...that's a load of a difference.

fnfalman
07-13-2012, 12:06
Hey, I think you missed the point on this one. It might be worth re-reading the thread from the beginning. I am well aware of KE, P, BC, whatever else. My point in all of this is that a 10mm/200grain bullet at 1600fps (assuming that's a realistic number-which is debatable) out of a 16" barrel, has merit in some hunting and self-defense situations. That's it. We got a little off track, and the kick below the belt was about the school. I kicked back.

That's not what you said. You claim that the 10mm out of 16" barrel has better penetration than the 5.56mm at range of 150-yds or closer because of momentum (aka power factor).

It's obvious that you know very little about thermodynamics and now energy conversion work, otherwise you wouldn't be making statements about how momentum affects penetration more than kinetic energy.

fnfalman
07-13-2012, 12:10
Don't you need to be a PE to call yourself an engineer in CA and NM? PM me your license number and all is well.

.

Ah...no. My degree says that I'm an engineer. A Professional Engineering (of which I am not) stamp would allow me to sign off on designs and testify in court.

You really don't know much about engineers and engineering profession, do you?

And I doubt that you sarcastically posted anything. From what you've posted thus far, once again, I don't think that you know squat about thermodynamics and Newtonian physics.

Mountain10mm
07-13-2012, 12:14
In this case, the bullet sizes and kinetic energies (assuming that bullet designs are the same) are too close to each other to really make a real difference.

A fat, slow 10mm round comoared to a small and fast 5.56mm round...that's a load of a difference.

Couldn't agree more. As mentioned in one of my first posts it's the "slow-and-heavy vs. fast-and-light" argument which often is not settled. I was trying to bring to light some of the pro's regarding the slow-and-heavy side - which I think has merit.

45-70 vs. 300 win mag for dangerous game?
45 acp vs. 9mm for personal defense?

The debate goes on.

countrygun
07-13-2012, 12:19
Now you are just being immature.

How can a round contained in a pistol out do a round that can't be contained in a pistol?

And you know that energy is 1/2 mass x (velocity^2) right?

Can you tell me what the bigger factor in that equation is? I think a 6th grader could.


How about stepping away from the graph paper and telling us about your actual experience shoting 100#+ mammals with any of the rounds in question?

I have seen the .223 used on deer out to 100 yds and I have seen and used the .44 mag out to the same distance

I actually have the experience in the field with the rounds.

The .44 mag wins.

Mountain10mm
07-13-2012, 12:21
Ah...no. My degree says that I'm an engineer. A Professional Engineering (of which I am not) stamp would allow me to sign off on designs and testify in court.

You really don't know much about engineers and engineering profession, do you?

And I doubt that you sarcastically posted anything. From what you've posted thus far, once again, I don't think that you know squat about thermodynamics and Newtonian physics.

As an uneducated, dumb, engineer, I know this. It is a crime, punishable by law, to call yourself, or portray yourself as an engineer, when you are not licensed. Just about every chat room you use FNFALMAN, you call yourself an engineer. Shall we see what the California Board of Engineers, Surveyors, and Geologists has to say about how dumb I am?

fnfalman
07-13-2012, 12:23
In your own words, not mine.

APF is a simplified measure of momentum (grain- ft/s, as opposed to lb.- ft/s) often used in competition shooting to make sure ammunition is of similar "energy" as other competitors. In any case, it is a comparable measure of momentum which plays a key part in penetration and long distance velocities. Bullets with higher power factors will retain velocity at longer ranges better than lower power factor bullets. Obviously, the velocity issue doesn't take into account ballistic coefficients, in which the 5.56 has the advantage.
If a 10mm (.40cal) bullet can be pushed out of a 16 barrel at 1600ft/s, I think it would be more devastating than a 5.56/223 within 150yards, especially for heavier targets such as people, deer, pigs, even black bear. After 150 yards, I would imagine the more streamlined 5.56 would help it fly flatter and more accurate. In the ballistics world, the 223 Remington is considered a varmint cartridge though it has been successfully used in combat situations and even big game. Its a slow and heavy verses light and fast argument which seems to never be settled.

Momentum absolutely affects penetration (things in motion tend to stay in motion - Newton's 2nd law - the more mass, the more momentum, the more in motion it wants to stay, i.e. the more penetration), .

I tell you what, you take these claims to a college physics or engineering professor, and if they agree that your statements are correct, then I'll print out this whole thread and eat it.

Mountain10mm
07-13-2012, 12:33
In your own words, not mine.





I tell you what, you take these claims to a college physics or engineering professor, and if they agree that your statements are correct, then I'll print out this whole thread and eat it.

You name the professor, provide contact info. or a link to a ballistics program. I have no problem being wrong and learning something...if I am.

Mountain10mm
07-13-2012, 13:19
[QUOTE=fnfalman;19192314]That's not what you said. You claim that the 10mm out of 16" barrel has better penetration than the 5.56mm at range of 150-yds or closer because of momentum (aka power factor).
QUOTE]

Yes. Still think so. Sounds like we need a day at the range and a TC 10mm 16" barrel. Anyone have one?

fnfalman
07-13-2012, 13:20
I am sorry but the wheels are off your cart.

Compare the 87 gn .250/3000 bullet to a 140 gn 6.5 Swede, The muzzle the Sweed is about 400 fps slower but penetrates the heck out of the lighter, faster, smaller bullet.

An 87-gr bullet at 3000-fps has a KE of approximately 1739-lbft at the muzzle.

A 140-gr bullet at 2600-fps has a KE of approximately 2101-lbft at the muzzle

The same holds true in handgun bullets. A cast swc in .357 going 1,500 fps will not penetrate as deeply as an identically designed 240 gn bullet from a .44 mag going 1,200 fps.

A 158-gr bullet at a screaming 1500-fps has a muzzle KE of approximately 789-lbft.

A 240-gr bullet at 1200-fps has a muzzle KE of approximately 766-lbft

Nonetheless, you're comparing two rifle rounds against each other and two handgun rounds against each other with fairly similar diameters.

You're not comparing a 10mm round against a 5.56mm round.

Regardless, penetration requires energy. More energy means more capability to penetrate ASSUMING that the bullet doesn't blow up or expand too much.

There's a reason why Momentum isn't included in the Laws of Thermodynamics.

In order to do Work (which is what penetration and destruction of tissues/materials are), you have to have Energy. Energy in this case is the kinetic energy of the bullet converting into Work as it hits the target be the target flesh, bone, glass, metal, wood, jelly. How this energy is transferred into the target is solved by the mechanics: bullet design (diameter, length, center of gravity, sectional density, size of hollowpoint, shape of tip, et al) + bullet composition (soft lead, hard lead, copper jacket, steel jacket, lead core, steel core, tungsten core, bonded jacket, all copper, composite core, et al).

A bullet with extremely high velocity but will shatter upon impact because it was designed as a varmint round ain't gonna do much but scratch a deer. Same bullet with a good penetrator...that's a whole different story.

Nonetheless, it's as simple as I've stated over and over again. Penetration = Work which equals to Energy. Energy in this case equals to Kinetic Energy. If the Energy level isn't sufficient then all the momentum in the world ain't gonna do squat.

fnfalman
07-13-2012, 13:22
Yes. Still think so. Sounds like we need a day at the range and a TC 10mm 16" barrel. Anyone have one?

Yep. A 10mm FMJ out of a 16" TC barrel versus a 5.56mm FMJ out of a 20" AR barrel. Enough theorizing, let's put some lead downrange.

fnfalman
07-13-2012, 13:22
You name the professor, provide contact info. or a link to a ballistics program. I have no problem being wrong and learning something...if I am.

I'll take the words of the professor from your school.

fnfalman
07-13-2012, 13:26
As an uneducated, dumb, engineer, I know this. It is a crime, punishable by law, to call yourself, or portray yourself as an engineer, when you are not licensed. Just about every chat room you use FNFALMAN, you call yourself an engineer. Shall we see what the California Board of Engineers, Surveyors, and Geologists has to say about how dumb I am?

Yes, please, show me where the laws says that it's a crime to call one's self an engineer; NOT a Professional Engineer, but an engineer.

countrygun
07-13-2012, 13:30
If the Energy level isn't sufficient then all the momentum in the world ain't gonna do squat.


The whole theory you are trying to apply comes right apart with your very last sentence.

Can you see the readily apparent flaw?

I highlighted a word to give you a clue.

fnfalman
07-13-2012, 13:34
The whole theory you are trying to apply comes right apart with your very last sentence.

Can you see the readily apparent flaw?

I highlighted a word to give you a clue.

You win. Heavy and slow out penetrates light and fast any day, regardless of calibers.

Mountain10mm
07-13-2012, 14:38
Yes, please, show me where the laws says that it's a crime to call one's self an engineer; NOT a Professional Engineer, but an engineer.

California does not regulate the word "engineer" but does regulate "industrial engineer" which is as you describe yourself in your GT profile. NM, where you also state you are from does specifically regulate the use of the word "engineer."

fnfalman
07-13-2012, 15:22
California does not regulate the word "engineer" but does regulate "industrial engineer" which is as you describe yourself in your GT profile. NM, where you also state you are from does specifically regulate the use of the word "engineer."

I am a degreed engineer working for a heavy industrial company as a field engineer. So, what exactly am I to call myself? In hindsight, you're right. I'm no longer a heavy industrial engineer. I've been long promoted to project manager.

Need to update the profile.

However, I'd still like some sort of link or even reference to laws/regulations in California and New Mexico that forbid people working as "engineers" or call themselves "engineers", or having companies designated them as "engineers". Not Professional Engineers with certificates and stamps. Just good old fashion plain jane engineers.

fnfalman
07-13-2012, 15:29
As an uneducated, dumb, engineer,

So, you have a PE certificate and stamp too? Post it. Shove my face into it. Make me eat my words.

NeverMore1701
07-13-2012, 15:44
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/10/21/128691028646198789.jpg

Foxtrotx1
07-13-2012, 15:45
How about stepping away from the graph paper and telling us about your actual experience shoting 100#+ mammals with any of the rounds in question?

I have seen the .223 used on deer out to 100 yds and I have seen and used the .44 mag out to the same distance

I actually have the experience in the field with the rounds.

The .44 mag wins.

I'm not talking about hunting, i'm talking about muzzle energy, which was the original topic on page 1.

Besides, the .44 mag is nearing the energy ball park of a 5.56 (16 inch barrel) with a 7.5 inch barrel. Yeah, it's great inside 100 yards. But 200? 5.56 OTM all the way.


Oh and before this thread gets locked....

For the love of God how are you getting a 200 grainier to 1600 FPS in a 16inch barrel with a Blowback action?

countrygun
07-13-2012, 16:07
I'm not talking about hunting, i'm talking about muzzle energy, which was the original topic on page 1.

Besides, the .44 mag is nearing the energy ball park of a 5.56 (16 inch barrel) with a 7.5 inch barrel. Yeah, it's great inside 100 yards. But 200? 5.56 OTM all the way.


Oh and before this thread gets locked....

For the love of God how are you getting a 200 grainier to 1600 FPS in a 16inch barrel with a Blowback action?


Deer hunting, you know, actually killing an animal of roughly the same size and weight as a human and then cutting it open and seeing the damage, has a lot more to teach about effectiveness than punching numbers into a formula.


for fnfalman

Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygunhttp://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19192532#post19192532)
The whole theory you are trying to apply comes right apart with your very last sentence.

Can you see the readily apparent flaw?

I highlighted a word to give you a clue.
You win. Heavy and slow out penetrates light and fast any day, regardless of calibers."


There is no reason to be snarky.

 

There is also no reason at all to think that whether the ammo comes out of a 50rd box marked "pistol ammo" or a 20 rd box marked "rifle ammo" should make any difference to your calculations.

Your formulas do not take in account for that factor and should still work if the playing field was equal Rifle v rifle. I pulled out the stats for two calibers, who's effects I am familiar with and which have similar "paper" ballistics

 

6.5x54 M-S (140 SP) 2400( muzzle velocity) 1790 (Muzzle energy)

220 Swift (55 SpBT) 3800 (muzzle velocity) 1765 (muzzle energy)

 

Any guess as to which penetrates significantly deeper?

Work out the percentage difference between the velocities and then the bullet weights.

If you could see the penetration difference and work out the percentage there, it would give you a different perspective on velocity V weight in penetration.

Sendarr
07-13-2012, 16:17
Is the argument being made here that the only difference between rifle and pistol cartridges is the platform( barrel length) in which they're fired?

countrygun
07-13-2012, 16:28
Is the argument being made here that the only difference between rifle and pistol cartridges is the platform( barrel length) in which they're fired?

Read the first ten posts, you'll get the gist

fnfalman
07-13-2012, 16:34
Your formulas do not take in account for that factor and should still work if the playing field was equal Rifle v rifle.

And I've stated over and over and over and over again that I didn't take into account a myriad of things such as bullet profiles, compositions, designs.

I pulled out the stats for two calibers, who's effects I am familiar with and which have similar "paper" ballistics

6.5x54 M-S (140 SP) 2400( muzzle velocity) 1790 (Muzzle energy)

220 Swift (55 SpBT) 3800 (muzzle velocity) 1765 (muzzle energy)

 Any guess as to which penetrates significantly deeper?

Same bullet designs and constructions? Not just any soft point versus any soft point where the .220 Swift would blow up or expand much more than the Swede?

You're a handloader, why don't you load up some of the above rounds in FMJ so that we know there's no expansion and low probability of bullet destruction when shot into soft tissues then shoot them and return the result?

fnfalman
07-13-2012, 16:40
Is the argument being made here that the only difference between rifle and pistol cartridges is the platform( barrel length) in which they're fired?

The argument is of twofolds:

1. A 10mm round out of 16" barrel would outpenetrage a 5.56mm round out of a 16" or 20" barrel (carbine to carbine). ASSUMING that the two rounds are of similar design. Obviously if you were to shoot the 10mm in ball versus the 5.56mm in varmint load then the 5.56mm isn't going to penetrate for squat because it'd probably blow apart upon impact.

2. A big, heavy and slow bullet with more momentum would somehow aid penetration more than a smaller, lighter and faster bullet.

I question the scientific theory as to how momentum would aid in penetration. Set aside bullet design and composition because we all know that these things both affect penetration. Two rounds made out of the same composition and bullet design but one bigger, heavier and slower versus one smaller, lighter and faster. Big one with a lot more momentum versus little one with a lot more kinetic energy. Which one would penetrate more?

WayaX
07-13-2012, 22:20
Obviously if you were to shoot the 10mm in ball versus the 5.56mm in varmint load then the 5.56mm isn't going to penetrate for squat because it'd probably blow apart upon impact.

This brings up another point. Too much penetration is a bad thing. The 5.56 will have a good chance at yawing, while the most the 10mm can do is expand if it is a hollow point. In a ball vs. ball scenario, I think the 5.56 would definately win out here.

Sendarr
07-14-2012, 05:55
I'm a big 10mm fan, and I've seen the guys hunting with 10mm glocks, to a respectable range. 10mm is also often mentioned when talking about a handgun to have in case of bears.

That being said, it's not a rifle round. I highly doubt it would penetrate the same as a 5.56 or any other rifle round. (excluding those below .223 like 22lr, .17 etc.) Obviously the goal of any combat cartridge is the same, and very similar to the goal of hunting rounds as well. The 5.56 accomplishes this in a different way than most handgun cartridges as we all know.

The strength in the 5.56 is usually in fragmentation or yawing. What happens when a 5.56 fails to yaw or fragment? It pokes icepick holes in the target, which is essentially what? over penetration.

A 10mm SD round is usually going to be a HP, so the way it accomplishes it's goal is obvious. If someone were shot with 10mm ball however, it may over penetrate.


Will a handgun round get better performance from a longer barrel? Yes, until the point of diminishing returns. Does that make it a rifle round? No.
I do think a 10mm carbine or SMG could be fun, but that's a whole other story, and there are cheaper cartridges to use for fun guns :cool:

Just my long-winded $0.02 on the matter.

uptomyneck
07-14-2012, 12:15
I shoot suppressed 99% of the time. Except for the AR-10, everything else has a short barrel so they're more wielding for hunting and HD.

I know one thing for sure is that shooting 5.56/6.8/7.62x39 thru a 7-12" barrel eats up the insides of a can. Pistol calibers on an AR platform haven't damaged any of my suppressors.

NEOH212
07-14-2012, 18:58
Ronnie Barrett started out with the 10MM. He saw it was entirely too powerful and was overkill. He couldn't contain all that power in a rifle platform.

So, he toned it down a little with the 50 BMG. What would possess anyone to think a AR could handle the 10MM anyhow?

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

:tongueout::tongueout:

countrygun
07-14-2012, 20:00
Ronnie Barrett started out with the 10MM. He saw it was entirely too powerful and was overkill. He couldn't contain all that power in a rifle platform.

So, he toned it down a little with the 50 BMG. What would possess anyone to think a AR could handle the 10MM anyhow?



:tongueout::tongueout:


Don't worry your pretty little head about it. It's a man's caliber anyway.

:tongueout::supergrin:

Fritz1
07-15-2012, 13:46
I think I see a solution: both standing on the 100 yard line, shoot Mountain10mm with a 5.56 and FNFALMAN with a 10mm once each. Last one breathing wins the argument.:tongueout:

NeverMore1701
07-15-2012, 13:50
I think I see a solution: both standing on the 100 yard line, shoot Mountain10mm with a 5.56 and FNFALMAN with a 10mm once each. Last one breathing wins the argument.:tongueout:

Now put both in lvl 3A soft armor :whistling:

Sendarr
07-15-2012, 15:03
I was actually going to bring up soft armor lol

Ballisticism
07-15-2012, 19:42
Now according to what we have heard here, the 10mm 200 gn bullet would struggle to break 1,000 which means it would only be a whisker above the 25 grain .17 Remington

I don't know about anyone else but that makes me say "whut?"

From the perspective of someone with an A in 1st-year college level physics (core class, not a physics major) - I'm looking at this like a textbook word problem:

If the deer was on a frictionless surface, and the collisions of the projectile and the deer were completely inelastic collisions, the deer would have a slightly higher velocity after the collision with the 10mm round compared to the .17 Remington round.

Realistically, the deer is not on a frictionless surface, and the goal is not to accelerate the deer with the kinetic energy of the bullet, but to impose catastrophic destruction upon its circulatory system. In this instance, the larger projectile will have a greater capacity to do tissue damage, whereas the blazingly fast .17 round would probably fragment and produce many small wound channels, which the deer's natural defenses against injury may be able to overcome for a longer duration that the 10mm, which would probably be more likely to stone the animal where it stood due to a combination of precipitous decline in blood pressure and actual transfer of kinetic energy.

So, in a projectile-vs-animal scenario, a larger projectile does impart some advantage, in many instances.

Sendarr
07-16-2012, 04:08
This wasnt about .17. It was basically about 5.56/20" barrel vs 10mm/16" barrel. If you change the caliber and just compare any two randoms, it changes the argument. I.e. 454casull vs .22lr!

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

fnfalman
07-16-2012, 08:17
Don't worry your pretty little head about it. It's a man's caliber anyway.

:tongueout::supergrin:

10mm is a man's caliber? Must be a small man...

alexanderg23
07-16-2012, 15:25
If it took glock mags it would be sweet

John Rambo
07-16-2012, 20:55
10mm is a man's caliber? Must be a small man...

Makes you wonder what kinda pansy women the FBI employs, huh? :supergrin:

fnfalman
07-16-2012, 21:27
Makes you wonder what kinda pansy women the FBI employs, huh? :supergrin:

And they still had to detune the weak ass round.

countrygun
07-16-2012, 21:34
10mm is a man's caliber? Must be a small man...


We must have different standards around here, even my wife carries a .45 acp.