>>540502>1 that not everything has an equation to back it.Cool, most everything we're discussing here does with a few exceptions you pointed out that could lean in favor of either of our ideas.
>2 Based on some simple energy transfer principles, a projectile that embeds itself in the target will transfer more of its energy than the same projectile passing through the target. This was never disputed, ever.
Honestly I was going to give my input about the last portion but you seem to have solved it yourself. I can post more tests that corroborate the average arrow energy we're seeing, but given off the figures of the article you posted alone, most .22 lr is going to have more kinetic energy.
This is where I tap out, as again, my full understanding of physics is highschool and basic ballistics, I don't know what properties contribute to an arrow penetrating deeper and through denser material than .22 would be adequate for. Momentum? Inertia?
I just know the numbers aren't lying, in regards to pure kinetic energy the guy saying the bow puts out more is just objectively, wrong as long as we stay sensible with our choice of hunting tools, even if the bullet over penetrates and doesn't transfer all of its energy. The odd catch is that the less energy the bullet has, the more likely it won't over penetrate, and the larger percentage of energy will be transferred.
