Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 8300486" data-attributes="member: 6796468">Sure. Depending on Musketball Size. Since that 1440 assumes the .69 you keep referencing, other musket balls will have LESS kinetic energy and impart LESS force. Or did you not notice that part of the post you quoted last night, either?"Inches away from their housing". Their housing goes with them. There's also the fact that any compression force (Caused by the cavitation behind the bullet) is going to follow the inverse square law because the total force is being divided across all directions and over distance. Meaning things closer to the 1.4 inch mark away from the bullet will barely move at all compared to the much higher forces closer to the wound channel.If the wound channel passes through an organ the Permanent Cavity will be the damage created by the Temporary Cavity. Even with a 414m/s .69 inch ball you're not going to wind up with a 3 inch diameter hole in your liver. A sword strike to the same organ will probably do a similar job of ruining that organ.So to recap for you:1) Muskets carried wildly varied energy rather than 2,000-3,000.2) Most muskets of a high caliber (.69) carried around 1,440J.3) Most muskets weren't as high caliber as the Brown Bess of the 1700s and 1800s. (The ubiquitous Spanish Musket was .54, for example, in the 1500s)4) Most muskets fired around 300m/s (A .54 at that rate would've had 675J and a momentum of 4.5 kg·m/s)Fun note: The Spanish musket design was super popular in the 1500s because they sold a version made specifically for Japan everywhere else and people loved the style.</blockquote>

Verification