Did I explain this right?

[LaLongbeard]

It shows that while TSS retains velocity better than #5 lead, the #5 lead starts off with and maintains more pellet energy than TSS #9 to 60 yards. 

Now if people would only comprehend what they are reading??
Either shoot TSS #7s or stop lying to yourself and everybody else

I did actually comprehend it, and your conclusion regarding #7 TSS trumping everything is 100% spot on, #7 TSS is super bad medicine. However, your conclusion regarding #9 TSS isn't correct, nor does does it reflect what those charts say. For the sake of OG, keeping the difference set to 40 yards.

What is important is the percent differences in loss of energy. Math shows the percent change loss in foot-lbs is the same for the penetration and energy in these tables - do the math, lead #5 loses 65.9% of its energy at 40 yards, while the #9 TSS only sheds 51.8% of its initial muzzle energy at 40 yards. If you doubt it, I included it below.

What are the most important variables in play? Mass and physical size or surface area of the pellet - drag / air resistance / friction loss. That is expressed pointedly in the down range penetration energy where surface area differences between #5 and #9 becomes most pronounced.

A #9 TSS pellet has 55.2% greater penetration energy force than #5 lead because of its higher mass and its smaller surface area, and hardness. That math is also below, remember foot-lbs percentage loss is exactly the same in the penetration chart and the energy chart - it is exactly 65.9% for #5 lead, and 51.8% for #9 TSS.

While at first glance and without entertaining the reality of physics, the retained energy of #5 lead at 2.73 ft/lbs compared to 1.88 ft/lbs for #9 TSS may seem like an easy conclusion, that #5 lead 'hits harder.' It doesn't. The reason it doesn't is a #9 pellet is smaller with 67.3% more mass than its larger "heavier" #5 lead counterpart. This really illustrates the difference between weight and mass.

Because lead #5 has a only 1/3 the mass of a #9 TSS pellet, AND that #5 is 33.4% larger in physical size than its #9 TSS counterpart, the #9 TSS will hit harder over its surface area, and penetrate more deeply. Conversely, the lower mass and larger surface area of a #5 lead pellet, as evident in these charts, results in less penetration energy downrange on target than #9 TSS.

This is why people who shoot TSS come on OG and say things like 'I can't prove, but I know what I see when that load of TSS hits.'

Then you add significantly fewer #5 lead pellets (bigger things take up more space) hitting the 40 yard target, somewhere in the range of 100+ #5 lead in a 10" circle compared to compared to 300+ #9 TSS. Three times the pattern density, 2/3rds greater mass, less surface area, that's a freight train of TSS #9 sized energy going downrange and unleashed.

To put it another way, and while an exaggeration, sort of like getting hit with a kid's big fat wiffle ball bat compared to getting hit with the working end of a bladed 3 iron (refer to Tiger Wood's car for evidence).

So here is the math. Direct comparison in efficiencies.

Size: #5 = 0.12"           #9 = 0.08"
Difference in size:
0.12 - 0.08 = 0.04"
0.04 / 0.12 = #5 pellet is 33.34% larger

Difference in mass:
0.38868 (#5 Pb) - 0.6503 (TSS) = -0.26162
-0.26162 / 0.38868 = #5 pellet has 67.3% less mass


#5 energy loss: (foot-lbs is foot-lbs in two charts, loss is the same whether penetration or straight energy)
707.7 - 241.3 = 466.6 lbs-ft.in2 lost
466.2 / 707.7 =
65.9% loss of penetration force over 40 yards, retaining slightly more than 1/3 of its initial energy at the muzzle.

#9 energy loss:
776.1 - 374.4 = 401.7 lbs-ft/in2 lost
401.7 / 776.1 =
51.8% loss of penetration force over 40 yards, retaining slightly under 1/2 of its initial energy at the muzzle.

  -- OR --

#5 pellet ft-lbs energy loss over 40 yards:
8.00 - 2.73 = 5.27 lb-ft lost
5.27 / 8.0 = 65.9% loss of energy

#9 ft-lbs energy over 40 yards:
3.90 - 1.88 = 2.02 lb-ft lost
2.02 / 3.90 = 51.8% loss of energy

See? They are the same. What is important here is penetration energy - considering surface area and mass of the object in flight - this is exactly where #9 TSS trumps #5 lead.

40 yard energy difference between #5 pb and #9 TSS:
241.3 ft-lbs – 374.4 ft-lbs = -133.1 ft-lbs
-133.1 ft-lbs / 241.3 ft-lbs = -55.2% less penertration energy for #5 Pb comapred to #9 TSS at 40 yards

Other factor in the momentum or force equation is speed, right? For an object with less mass to make up its shortcomings, it must go faster. So for all things being equal, as the chart notes:

#5 velocity loss over 40 yards:
1,200 - 701 = 499 fps lost
499 / 1,200 = 41.6% loss in velocity

#9 over 40 yards:
1,200 - 834 = 366 fps lost
834 / 1,200 = 30.5% loss in velocity

Some may argue '133 fps difference at 40 yards, big deal' until you factor in the 67% additional mass - that factors into downrange force as evidenced in the penetration energy.

You continue to hear guys say ' wow, that #9 just flat knocked them off their feet.' Now, finally, we know why.

That is comprehension.

That's also a lot of typing. None of that changes the chart posted lead still has more kinetic energy. Momentum is not the same. Can someone show proof the chart is wrong or that the energy comparisons I made are wrong? Energy of a projectile is easily figured.  Why is it that only TSS comparisons try to use momentum while every other bullet or shot is compared with kinetic energy? # 7 TSS is heavier and can be loaded faster but that's not the comparison used most often it's the tired ol #9'to lead #5. And it still doesn't have more energy, it just does not and never will.
     The wiffle ball bat analogy is about like the lead vs steel but again reversed. The lighter object being compared is still the TSS period because it weighs less.
    As for the ballistic gel it does not and was never  meant to replicate bones, muscle feathers or animal hide. It is a cheap consistent substance to use for comparison. It does not represent what happens in the real world when hitting bones. A #9 TSS will not break bones like a #5 lead. That's were the size and weight per pellet of lead is superior. This is not an opinion I've seen wing bones with tiny little TSS #9 holes thru them that a # 5 would have broken.
     Were is the proof of #9 having more energy than a #5 or even equal energy at hunting ranges? Penetrating thru a Turkey is not the goal it's delivering force and energy. I've never once saw a need for more penetration than thru the turkeys body or head how far the pellet goes beyond that is of no concern. How many bones were broken  and energy expended in the target not past the target is what counts.
       For lack of a better analogy which projectile would expend more energy on target a 30/06 steel jacketed bullet or a 12 gauge lead slug. The 30/06 would probably out penetrate the slug in ballistic gel several times over. But the same steel jacket bullet would not expand and would only leave a caliber sized hole thru the deer, while the lead slug would expend all its energy inside the deer and more often than not knock him off his feet.
    Until someone can change the way a projectiles energy is figured and then change the weight of a TSS #9 pellet the 9 vs 5 comparison is wrong and that's my point.
     
       

[LaLongbeard]

This may help


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paboxcall]

^^ LOL.

That's also a lot of typing. None of that changes the chart posted lead still has more kinetic energy. Momentum is not the same. Can someone show proof the chart is wrong or that the energy comparisons I made are wrong? Energy of a projectile is easily figured.  Why is it that only TSS comparisons try to use momentum while every other bullet or shot is compared with kinetic energy? # 7 TSS is heavier and can be loaded faster but that's not the comparison used most often it's the tired ol #9'to lead #5. And it still doesn't have more energy, it just does not and never will.
     The wiffle ball bat analogy is about like the lead vs steel but again reversed. The lighter object being compared is still the TSS period because it weighs less.
    As for the ballistic gel it does not and was never  meant to replicate bones, muscle feathers or animal hide. It is a cheap consistent substance to use for comparison. It does not represent what happens in the real world when hitting bones. A #9 TSS will not break bones like a #5 lead. That's were the size and weight per pellet of lead is superior. This is not an opinion I've seen wing bones with tiny little TSS #9 holes thru them that a # 5 would have broken.
     Were is the proof of #9 having more energy than a #5 or even equal energy at hunting ranges? Penetrating thru a Turkey is not the goal it's delivering force and energy. I've never once saw a need for more penetration than thru the turkeys body or head how far the pellet goes beyond that is of no concern. How many bones were broken  and energy expended in the target not past the target is what counts.
       For lack of a better analogy which projectile would expend more energy on target a 30/06 steel jacketed bullet or a 12 gauge lead slug. The 30/06 would probably out penetrate the slug in ballistic gel several times over. But the same steel jacket bullet would not expand and would only leave a caliber sized hole thru the deer, while the lead slug would expend all its energy inside the deer and more often than not knock him off his feet.
    Until someone can change the way a projectiles energy is figured and then change the weight of a TSS #9 pellet the 9 vs 5 comparison is wrong and that's my point.
     
     

All good, LA, just felt like doing some math during lunch break! LOL. Again, I'm no sold down the river TSS guy, just like tinkering with the new data presented.

Still hunt Hevi #7 in the 12 gauge but I love TSS in my little 20 gauge. To your point I think partly what TSS loses in mushrooming, flattening, etc. due to hardness it makes up by hitting the target so many times. Just my theory.

But here's the thing, LA. Explain to me exactly how Hevi shot, which looks like weld slag swept up off the shop floor in drips and splats, flies and patterns so incredibly well with all those flat surfaces, and retains its substantial amount of down range energy. That should be our next good conversation!

If you would have come to me with a handful of that mess suggesting we load it in a shot shell, I would have laughed.

[paboxcall]

And TSS' ability to effectively penetrate makes the shooter's knowing what is down range past the target ever the more critical. Stuff just flies and flies. Just saying.

[blake_08]

I'm not taking sides and I shoot both TSS and lead (LB in my 12 gauge, TSS 7x9s in my sons 20 gauge) but the lead really does have more energy (kinetic energy) than the #9 TSS given the same muzzle velocity. This is what the chart shows, but I went ahead and checked the math.

Volume of #9 TSS= 2.68×10-4 or  0.000268 cubic inches
Mass= 0.081247063312 gram
KE=  @ 1200 fps is 5.43464 Joules or 4.008384759 ft lb
        @834 fps (40 yard velocity) is 2.62506 joules or 1.936144896 ft lb

Volume of #5 lead= 9.05×10-4 or  0.000905 cubic inches
Mass= 0.1595535655463 gram
KE= @ 1200 fps is 10.6726 Joules  or 7.871705794 ft lb
       @ 701 fps (40 yard velocity) is 3.64202 Joules or 2.686216099 ft lb

I got diameters of both pellets from Federal's website and density measurements from the chart. Then i used all of the decimal points and online calculators for mass and KE.

Just clearing the air here. #5 lead has more KE. It also has almost twice the mass of #9 TSS.

[Rapscallion Vermilion]

I'm not taking sides and I shoot both TSS and lead (LB in my 12 gauge, TSS 7x9s in my sons 20 gauge) but the lead really does have more energy (kinetic energy) than the #9 TSS given the same muzzle velocity. This is what the chart shows, but I went ahead and checked the math.

Volume of #9 TSS= 2.68×10-4 or  0.000268 cubic inches
Mass= 0.081247063312 gram
KE=  @ 1200 fps is 5.43464 Joules or 4.008384759 ft lb
        @834 fps (40 yard velocity) is 2.62506 joules or 1.936144896 ft lb

Volume of #5 lead= 9.05×10-4 or  0.000905 cubic inches
Mass= 0.1595535655463 gram
KE= @ 1200 fps is 10.6726 Joules  or 7.871705794 ft lb
       @ 701 fps (40 yard velocity) is 3.64202 Joules or 2.686216099 ft lb

I got diameters of both pellets from Federal's website and density measurements from the chart. Then i used all of the decimal points and online calculators for mass and KE.

Just clearing the air here. #5 lead has more KE. It also has almost twice the mass of #9 TSS.

Yes, no question at all an individual #5 has more mass and more kinetic energy at typical distances.  But I would also consider the total kinetic energy delivered and total penetration energy by multiplying by the number of pellets on target, a point already made by Pa.

[blake_08]

I'm not taking sides and I shoot both TSS and lead (LB in my 12 gauge, TSS 7x9s in my sons 20 gauge) but the lead really does have more energy (kinetic energy) than the #9 TSS given the same muzzle velocity. This is what the chart shows, but I went ahead and checked the math.

Volume of #9 TSS= 2.68×10-4 or  0.000268 cubic inches
Mass= 0.081247063312 gram
KE=  @ 1200 fps is 5.43464 Joules or 4.008384759 ft lb
        @834 fps (40 yard velocity) is 2.62506 joules or 1.936144896 ft lb

Volume of #5 lead= 9.05×10-4 or  0.000905 cubic inches
Mass= 0.1595535655463 gram
KE= @ 1200 fps is 10.6726 Joules  or 7.871705794 ft lb
       @ 701 fps (40 yard velocity) is 3.64202 Joules or 2.686216099 ft lb

I got diameters of both pellets from Federal's website and density measurements from the chart. Then i used all of the decimal points and online calculators for mass and KE.

Just clearing the air here. #5 lead has more KE. It also has almost twice the mass of #9 TSS.

Yes, no question at all an individual #5 has more mass and more kinetic energy at typical distances.  But I would also consider the total kinetic energy delivered and total penetration energy by multiplying by the number of pellets on target, a point already made by Pa.

I totally agree with you and PA on that. My comment was made towards this particular paragraph he wrote. Just clearing up that the paragraph is false. The #9 does not have 67.3% more mass and the lead does hit harder.

While at first glance and without entertaining the reality of physics, the retained energy of #5 lead at 2.73 ft/lbs compared to 1.88 ft/lbs for #9 TSS may seem like an easy conclusion, that #5 lead 'hits harder.' It doesn't. The reason it doesn't is a #9 pellet is smaller with 67.3% more mass than its larger "heavier" #5 lead counterpart. This really illustrates the difference between weight and mass.

I agree that the entire pattern of #9s deliver more energy because of the number of pellets on target, but if 30 pellets of tss #9s hit a gobbler, and 30 pellets of #5 lead hit a gobbler, both @ 40 yards, the 5s will deliver more energy. The lead does "hit harder".

I think this has been LAs argument all along.

[LaLongbeard]

^^ LOL.

That's also a lot of typing. None of that changes the chart posted lead still has more kinetic energy. Momentum is not the same. Can someone show proof the chart is wrong or that the energy comparisons I made are wrong? Energy of a projectile is easily figured.  Why is it that only TSS comparisons try to use momentum while every other bullet or shot is compared with kinetic energy? # 7 TSS is heavier and can be loaded faster but that's not the comparison used most often it's the tired ol #9'to lead #5. And it still doesn't have more energy, it just does not and never will.
     The wiffle ball bat analogy is about like the lead vs steel but again reversed. The lighter object being compared is still the TSS period because it weighs less.
    As for the ballistic gel it does not and was never  meant to replicate bones, muscle feathers or animal hide. It is a cheap consistent substance to use for comparison. It does not represent what happens in the real world when hitting bones. A #9 TSS will not break bones like a #5 lead. That's were the size and weight per pellet of lead is superior. This is not an opinion I've seen wing bones with tiny little TSS #9 holes thru them that a # 5 would have broken.
     Were is the proof of #9 having more energy than a #5 or even equal energy at hunting ranges? Penetrating thru a Turkey is not the goal it's delivering force and energy. I've never once saw a need for more penetration than thru the turkeys body or head how far the pellet goes beyond that is of no concern. How many bones were broken  and energy expended in the target not past the target is what counts.
       For lack of a better analogy which projectile would expend more energy on target a 30/06 steel jacketed bullet or a 12 gauge lead slug. The 30/06 would probably out penetrate the slug in ballistic gel several times over. But the same steel jacket bullet would not expand and would only leave a caliber sized hole thru the deer, while the lead slug would expend all its energy inside the deer and more often than not knock him off his feet.
    Until someone can change the way a projectiles energy is figured and then change the weight of a TSS #9 pellet the 9 vs 5 comparison is wrong and that's my point.
     
     

But here's the thing, LA. Explain to me exactly how Hevi shot, which looks like weld slag swept up off the shop floor in drips and splats, flies and patterns so incredibly well with all those flat surfaces, and retains its substantial amount of down range energy. That should be our next good conversation!

If you would have come to me with a handful of that mess suggesting we load it in a shot shell, I would have laughed.

That I have no answer for. When the HVY shot thing was getting going I cut a few shells open myself and the stuck together and miss shaped pellets struck me as odd as well. But it did in fact out pattern my best lead loads everytime? It is a fun part of the sport to continually try to improve your hunting equipment. The polishing of barrels forcing cone  lengthen or not ported chokes or not it can consume a lot of time between hunting seasons and that's probably part of the attraction to TSS. Knowing we  will never be 100% satisfied, what could possibly be next? Just how tight a pattern and what material could be next?

[paboxcall]

That I have no answer for. When the HVY shot thing was getting going I cut a few shells open myself and the stuck together and miss shaped pellets struck me as odd as well. But it did in fact out pattern my best lead loads everytime? It is a fun part of the sport to continually try to improve your hunting equipment. The polishing of barrels forcing cone  lengthen or not ported chokes or not it can consume a lot of time between hunting seasons and that's probably part of the attraction to TSS. Knowing we  will never be 100% satisfied, what could possibly be next? Just how tight a pattern and what material could be next?

There's good reason the military is shooting depleted uranium projectiles and not tungsten projectiles...Wonder if it they use it in a shot shell, and if its round or look like weld spatter?   

[paboxcall]

I'm not taking sides and I shoot both TSS and lead (LB in my 12 gauge, TSS 7x9s in my sons 20 gauge) but the lead really does have more energy (kinetic energy) than the #9 TSS given the same muzzle velocity. This is what the chart shows, but I went ahead and checked the math.

Volume of #9 TSS= 2.68×10-4 or  0.000268 cubic inches
Mass= 0.081247063312 gram
KE=  @ 1200 fps is 5.43464 Joules or 4.008384759 ft lb
        @834 fps (40 yard velocity) is 2.62506 joules or 1.936144896 ft lb

Volume of #5 lead= 9.05×10-4 or  0.000905 cubic inches
Mass= 0.1595535655463 gram
KE= @ 1200 fps is 10.6726 Joules  or 7.871705794 ft lb
       @ 701 fps (40 yard velocity) is 3.64202 Joules or 2.686216099 ft lb

I got diameters of both pellets from Federal's website and density measurements from the chart. Then i used all of the decimal points and online calculators for mass and KE.

Just clearing the air here. #5 lead has more KE. It also has almost twice the mass of #9 TSS.

Yes, no question at all an individual #5 has more mass and more kinetic energy at typical distances.  But I would also consider the total kinetic energy delivered and total penetration energy by multiplying by the number of pellets on target, a point already made by Pa.

I totally agree with you and PA on that. My comment was made towards this particular paragraph he wrote. Just clearing up that the paragraph is false. The #9 does not have 67.3% more mass and the lead does hit harder.

While at first glance and without entertaining the reality of physics, the retained energy of #5 lead at 2.73 ft/lbs compared to 1.88 ft/lbs for #9 TSS may seem like an easy conclusion, that #5 lead 'hits harder.' It doesn't. The reason it doesn't is a #9 pellet is smaller with 67.3% more mass than its larger "heavier" #5 lead counterpart. This really illustrates the difference between weight and mass.

I agree that the entire pattern of #9s deliver more energy because of the number of pellets on target, but if 30 pellets of tss #9s hit a gobbler, and 30 pellets of #5 lead hit a gobbler, both @ 40 yards, the 5s will deliver more energy. The lead does "hit harder".

I think this has been LAs argument all along.

So obviously there is a reason "penetration energy" is reported in foot-pounds per square inch, while "pellet energy" is reported in just foot-pounds. They are not the equivalent nor interchangeable, hence a need for two separate tables, however they do scale as I demonstrated in my math.

How I interpret this is the penetration table is a measure of force applied by the moving object, in foot pounds, to one square inch. And TSS #9 impact translates to more foot pounds of energy per square inch than lead.

I don't think penetration is literal here, meaning depth or ability to achieve depth. Instead its describing the magnitude of force impacting the target surface across one square inch. There are 12 square inches in one square foot so there's a multiplier effect here as well. 

Or not. Anyone got a number for Dr. Sheldon Cooper or Professor Proton?

[paboxcall]

So obviously there is a reason "penetration energy" is reported in foot-pounds per square inch, while "pellet energy" is reported in just foot-pounds. They are not the equivalent nor interchangeable, hence a need for two separate tables, however they do scale as I demonstrated in my math.

How I interpret this is the penetration table is a measure of force applied by the moving object, in foot pounds, to one square inch. And TSS #9 impact translates to more foot pounds of energy per square inch than lead.

I don't think penetration is literal here, meaning depth or ability to achieve depth. Instead its describing the magnitude of force impacting the target surface across one square inch. There are 12 square inches in one square foot so there's a multiplier effect here as well. 

Or not. Anyone got a number for Dr. Sheldon Cooper or Professor Proton?

So to further clarify my question, if you convert #9 TSS 374.4 foot-lbs / in2 at 40 yards to foot pounds, that equals 32.1 foot pounds of energy across one square foot.

If you convert #5 lead's 241.3 foot-lbs / in2 at 40 yards, that equals 20.1 foot pounds of energy.

What am I missing?

[paboxcall]

Think I got this. Penetration energy is given in psi, pounds per square inch, referring to the projectile's sectional density, its actual ability to penetrate. A pellet gun shot at dry wall will penetrate, a spit ball will not. Heavy arrow versus light arrow. All come with trade offs, right? Trajectory, drag, etc.

The higher the psi on this particular table refers to TSS's ability to better conserve its momentum. Hence people's reaction to TSS loads hitting their intended target.

So the higher value of TSS in penetration energy is proportional to its sectional density in comparison to lead. That makes sense. Found an old text discussing artillery, and calculated a projectile's ability to penetrate "layers of iron." Col. Tom Kelly could have answered all this, saved us a bunch of time.

Been an interesting learning experience peeling back the TSS onion.

[Tom007]

I was lost on the first chart. 

[g8rvet]

Think I got this. Penetration energy is given in psi, pounds per square inch, referring to the projectile's sectional density, its actual ability to penetrate. A pellet gun shot at dry wall will penetrate, a spit ball will not. Heavy arrow versus light arrow. All come with trade offs, right? Trajectory, drag, etc.

The higher the psi on this particular table refers to TSS's ability to better conserve its momentum. Hence people's reaction to TSS loads hitting their intended target.

So the higher value of TSS in penetration energy is proportional to its sectional density in comparison to lead. That makes sense. Found an old text discussing artillery, and calculated a projectile's ability to penetrate "layers of iron." Col. Tom Kelly could have answered all this, saved us a bunch of time.

Been an interesting learning experience peeling back the TSS onion.

Your analogy is off with the pellet and the spitball.  In order to make a better analogy, ask what would penetrate drywall better -  a 1 ounce ball of rubber or a 1 ounce ball of granite both fired at the same KE out of a barrel
ie faster rubber vs slower granite?  Both would have the same weight, but the granite would have a smaller surface area and would penetrate better.  Just like my analogy with Karamojo Bell shooting FMJ bullets instead of the soft lead of his era.  That was how he could get away with braining elephants with such a small caliber - pentration.  I would think a 303 round in FMJ would have a similar ratio to the elephant  as a #9 TSS to the turkey.  maybe less. 

All this arguing though is like  "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".  It is just abstract.  Both pellets, delivered with acceptable pattern at ethical range will absolutely smoke a turkey. A crappy TSS pattern will not outperform an excellent lead pattern, nor will a crappy lead pattern  outperform an excellent TSS pattern-in killing turkeys.  It just happens that an excellent pattern is easier to get with TSS in sub gauges. I have no idea why anyone would shoot TSS in a 12 gauge personally.  If someone wants to, have fun, I certainly do not think it is necessary.   

But I have enjoyed the physics and ballistics discussion.

[LaLongbeard]

And there it is another WRONG analogy. We are not comparing two projectiles of equal weight we are not comparing two projectiles of equal velocity.