.44 Magnum the same as .308?

[locosway]

I'm curious about something.

Would you say that a:

.44 Magnum 300gr @ 1350 fps

and a:

.308 147gr @ 2750 fps

Would do the same damage, transfer the same energy, and penetrate the same, if shot at a soft target at a distance of 10-15 feet approximately?

I don't want to incite any riots, but I've been working on something, and my data leads me to believe that they're equal under the terms I've listed.

[forgiven]

I don't know but OUCH!!

[elSquid]

The 308 has a heck of a lot more energy. If both are FMJ, I'd expect a lot more penetration out of the 308, and if bone is hit, probably a lot more in the way of secondary missiles.

If soft points for both, then for the 308...



-- Michael

[ivanimal]

44 magnum hollowpoints will take a lot more with it than a 308 FMJ. The energy from a 308 has to be greater based on velocity alone. At that distance the slower round would do more damage. I think.

[locosway]

Ok, I was working on a power factor for ammunition. I wanted to get something setup that would show differences in rounds based on their sectional density and performance.

I think I have something, but it shows the .44Mag and .308 as being the same on my scale. Of course this is right after the bullet leaves the barrel.

[Maltese Falcon]

.44 Magnum 300gr @ 1350 fps

I'm curious too... where do you get these? Best I can find for 300 GR is about 1000 fps...

That is some serious round.

[locosway]

I just grabbed some numbers off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.44_Magnum

[locosway]

I'm curious too... where do you get these? Best I can find for 300 GR is about 1000 fps...

That is some serious round.

At 1000 fps my scale shows the round being less than a .308 by some points.

[Maltese Falcon]

Yikes! There is supposedly a +P+ 340 gr @1478 fps....that has my vote. I guess we have to consider whether we want total destruction of your internal organs or a through and through....44 for stopping power,, 308 for long distance

[locosway]

Yes, well like I said. I was working on a model to show differences in rounds. It was mainly for handgun cartridges but I figured if it wasn't accurate for handgun vs. rifle then it can't be used.

So far I think it can be used, which makes me happy.

[Citizen Snips]

I'm no expert, but this subject is interesting. I read on the thread by the former LEO turned coroner (can't recall the forum), that a doubling of velocity quadruples energy while doubling weight doubles the energy and that the hydrostatic shock effect at over 2500 fps is something that short barrels have a heck of a time duplicating with projectile weights of any significance. I've also read that energy isn't the BAEA of terminal ballistics though. What exactly the HSE does that a 44mag won't do I don't know. Cool thread subject

[locosway]

Problem is, hydrostatic shock can't be proved.

[1911su16b870]

I'm curious about something.

Would you say that a:

.44 Magnum 300gr @ 1350 fps

and a:

.308 147gr @ 2750 fps

Would do the same damage, transfer the same energy, and penetrate the same, if shot at a soft target at a distance of 10-15 feet approximately?

I don't want to incite any riots, but I've been working on something, and my data leads me to believe that they're equal under the terms I've listed.

The 308 would do more damage by creating larger temporary and permanent wound channels in the soft target.

The Kinetic Energy is 1/2 mass velocity^2, so your 308/44mag ratio using the above numbers would be a factor of 2.

I recall seeing the aftermath of 308 in a gelatin block compared to handgun rounds and it wasn't even close (but do not recall if 44 mag) was presented.

[JDoe]

Problem is, hydrostatic shock can't be proved.

Is that absolutely true? Here's an experiment where raccoons were killed or incapacitated by "hydrostatic shock" AKA "ballistic pressure wave."

Experimental Observations of Incapacitation via Ballistic Pressure
Wave without a Wound Channel

Abstract:
This article describes experimental observation that incapacitation and injury can be caused by
a ballistic pressure wave independently from wounding caused by crushing effects of a bullet in
the wound channel. Live animal test subjects partially immersed in water were observed to be
incapacitated by a ballistic pressure wave created by a bullet passing through the water close to
the test subject without hitting the test subject. The water coupled the pressure wave to the
thoracic cavity of the test subject without perforation. Bullets producing larger pressure waves
caused incapacitation, whereas a load producing smaller pressure waves did not.
Submitted 31 July 2007

Just to keep things very clear, the raccoons were never actually shot but did suffer the consequences of a ballistic pressure wave/hydrostatic shock.

Load 3: 110 grain .308 Vmax at 3400 FPS
Four out of five test subjects were
incapacitated. One test subject was
immediately deceased. Two out of four
incapacitated test subjects were deceased
within 24 hours. The pressure wave
produced by this bullet is sufficient to produce
incapacitation in a significant fraction of test
subjects.

[locosway]

Water doesn't compress, so the concussion in the water is not the same as air. Could you equate the pressure from the bullet moving through the water to the bullet striking water filled soft tissue?

Hydrostatic shock on humans isn't proven, and many forensic doctors have dismissed it.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to prove or disprove hydrostatic shock. I was more interested in raw power, in the penetration ability.

I came up with a formula that I think works well to show differences of power, check it out!

http://gryman.com