Talk:Taylor knock-out factor/Archive 1

How about a chart
I'm a user of Wikipedia, not much of an author. So I'm not sure what the conventions are, particularly in highly technical articles like this.

However as a user I would find it immensly more useful to have a chart that showed TKO values for 20 or 30 common rounds than a description of the formula. I think a lot of people would come to this page to find out: does the 200gr. 30-06 have more power than the .35 Whelen, or similar types of comparos.

As it is this article doesn't help much with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.180.239 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the 7.62 is a 0.308" or sometimes even a 0.309" when using cast lead bullets. I doubt 0.08" makes much difference in the numbers and I agree, not very scientific, more along the lines of voodoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.14.30.59 (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Math Wrong
7.62mm=0.3inches. I know it is called .308, but names of cartridges using american dimensions often have some measure of witchcraft behind them. This makes the equation wrong. When i get around to it i will try to fix this and also make a metric version of the formula, which will just have an adjusted divisor. I doubt this theory is very scientific to begin with. ExtremeSquared (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The .308 bullet is exactly 0.308 inches in diameter. Metric caliber designations have no more guarantee of being exactly correct than those using customary units. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Total Stupidity
An Olympic shot put weighs 16 lbs., is about 4.8 inches in diameter, is made of steel, and leaves a world class throw with about 15.9 meters per second initial velocity. After conversions this is a TKO in excess of 3500. Note there is no engineering unit for this dim bulb formula because it means nothing. The shot has an initial kinetic energy of about 915 Joules, about the muzzle energy of a 125 grain .357 magnum.

An elephant rifle chambered for the caliber .458 Lott cartridge launches a jacketed 500 grain lead bullet at about 2300 feet per second. This is a TKO of 75. The initial kinetic energy is about 7980 Joules.

Which do you suppose will drop a charging bull elephant more effectively: an Olympic shot putter or a guy with an elephant rifle?

People who use this formula know nothing of firearms ballistics and have never had a day of high school physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.175.8 (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously this formula would be far more useful if it took into account kinetic energy151.200.34.134 (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this guy is right. Lets see here, a shot put has TKO of over 3500 and a 458 Lott only 75. So much for the claim of it being a 'figure of merit'. Maybe figure of demerit or figure of confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.159.213.60 (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's an emperical formula (I.E. one based on experience, not physics), and it's specifically meant to be applied to bullets fired from a rifle at big game. Comparing a .458 Lott to a shot-put on this formula is like saying a car makes a more effective tank-killer than a bazooka due to the obvious difference in mass between a car and a bazooka rocket.  There are several factors that go into the Taylor formula which are simply presumed - the most important of which being that the projectile has the velocity to actually penetrate flesh and wound a big-game animal (I.E. it's a bullet fired from a rifle).  Again - it's an emperical formula, not a scientific one based on physics, and it's specifically meant to be applied to bullets fired from a rifle at big game.  Complaining that the physics don't work out misses the entire point, and ignores the fact that the formula is based on the experience of a man who shot an absolutely ridiculous amount of big game animals with a wide variety of weapons. 174.28.28.151 (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I maintain it's a stupid formula, empirical or otherwise and has to be called out as such. People shouldn't use it for anything. If the physics and the science do not work then nothing else about it can work.

Your comparison about tank-killers is not germane since no one is making such a claim.

As for implicit constraints, its obvious there could be many. Bullet composition, ballistic coefficient, sectional density, expansion all come to mind. As well, I imagine the intended target is a head shot on an African elephant, at relatively short range, perhaps 50 yards. Notice the main article mentions some of these as reasons why the formula might be inaccurate. But it shows the formula calculated for small pistol cartridges (e.g. .32 ACP). These aren't rifle cartridges and no one would hunt big game with them. The same is true for many of the examples given.

The formula has an even more basic problem. The output has no specific meaning. For example, if a cartridge X has a TKO statistic numerically twice that of a cartridge Y, then what information do we gain? Is it twice as likely to produce a single shot kill? Will it produce a wound twice the diameter or perhaps twice the depth in the target? Perhaps X will stop an animal twice the size of Y? It is not at all clear. This is because stopping power is ill-defined as a starting point.

Another basic problem is that muzzle velocity rather than impact velocity is used. This is a problem because cartridges have different velocity loss over distance. So X and Y might have equal diameter and mass but X may start out faster, and lose velocity faster than Y over a given distance such that Y impacts at a higher velocity. This could be due to the physical bullet profile. The formula would assign X a higher TKO when by its own definition Y would have higher stopping power.

There are more problems, but I would mention that real life data shows the formula outputs to be poor indicators of actual performance. Explicit examples are given by Chuck Hawks in his article (http://chuckhawks.com/taylor_KO_factor.htm) that .38-55 has a higher TKO than .30-30 against class 2 game, but .30-30 is legendarily more effective. 230 grain .45 ACP (not +P) has a higher TKO than both 165 .40 S&W and 158 .357 Magnum when in fact the one shot stop statistics are all the other way.

I bother to point all of this out with strong language because I really worry that someone might pick a gun based on this formula and minimally waste some game animal and worse actually get themselves hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.69.182.76 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments on 4/11/18 Rewrite of this article. TKO is still a completely useless statistic.
The 4/11/18 rewrite of this article removes many claims I disagreed with in the prior versions. However, the fundamental objection still remains. This formula predicts nothing. For it to be useful the output would have to describe some physical measurable reality. Examples might be that a TKO value of X provides a certain probability of a one shot kill given a head shot at a given distance on a mature African elephant, or it predicts a wound channel of certain depth on same target, or if not lethal it provides a certain period of unconsciousness of same target. But it does not do any of that. It doesn't even give useful limits, what value do I need to kill an elephant? 10, 100, 1000? Chuck Hawks points out that modern poachers use AK-47s to kill elephants for ivory.

In my previous criticism I showed that calculating the TKO of a shot put thrown by an Olympic athlete would have a TKO which was dozens of times greater than a bullet fired from a modern elephant rifle. According to this article said shot put hitting an elephant in the head should knock it out for longer than many of the elephant rifles mentioned. Which of course is a ridiculous result.

I challenge the author(s) of this article to provide data that this formula predicts anything measurable. Otherwise all should accept that this formula provides no useful results. The continued defense of this formula does nothing but mislead uniformed people about the possible effectiveness of particular cartridges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

TKOF comparison section
I make the NOR argument about the table of TKOF. No references are cited for any of its entries, so it is reasonable to conclude that the author calculated the values. These are then 'origin research'. Further many of the cartridges in it were developed after Taylor ended his career so they could not have been observed by him. There are footnotes admitting so. Since the article's entire defense of the TKOF is that the formula accords with Taylor's observations, therefore including any cartridges not observed is an endorsement of the formula without data. You are asserting the formula holds in some general sense not supported by data and contrary to physical and mathematical analysis. Such endorsement is not a NPOV.

You should remove any cartridges where you can not site references of Taylor's first hand observations and references confirming the individual calculations of the TKOF values for them.

Or you have to be willing to permit the publishing of my scientific analysis of the formula and we all know where that goes. A 6 inch lead cannonball moving at 1 foot per second weighs 46.3 lbs and has a TKOF of 278. The kinetic energy of the same cannonball is less than 1 Joule, about 0.75 ft-lbs, of energy. There's some stopping power for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * IP user, I have reduced the list to only cartidges discussed by Taylor. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC).

Review
I am glad to see that some improvements have been done for this article. Are this calculations still important in 21. century? Yes and No. For the old TKOF-values given at various notes for ammunitions there is a need to know what TKOF is. Calculations concerning stopping power in 21. centurey are f.e. done by forensic specialists like Beat Kneubuehl. This calculations are slightly more komplex. The reason for this calculation are almost the same as for TKOF or other comparable Indices: they have been done for hunting-bullets to figure out, if calibres are sufficient for some kind of game-hunting. The scope was not to cover all calibres of all times. With too small calibres it would be animal cruelty to shoot some kind of game. For this scope this kind of Index-calculations can still be helpful in 21. century. : Thanks for your work. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section
I restored my changes to the criticism section. Prove that any statement of it is untrue or leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello IP User, it is not the place of contributors here to publish their own opinions or analysis, I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia’s policies on contributing to articles, particularly WP:NOR. I have reverted your edit because it does not adhere to that policy, WP:NPOV or WP:V.  If you would like to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia constructively, I suggest you read WP:LEARN and perhaps also WP:TUTOR.  Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Hello again IP User, you should also familiarise yourself with WP:WEIGHT, I have incorporated Hawks' criticisms with due weight placed on them compared to the other cited sources. As for the McAdams reference, you completely WP:CHERRYPICKed a quote from a relatively positive article. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC).
 * IP User, please explain how this edit in not WP:TENDENTIOUS? It clearly applies undue WP:WEIGHT to one writer and WP:CHERRYPICKs a quote from another.  If you cannot adequately address these concerns I will revert the edit.  Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC).

The quotes I have chosen are not CHERRYPICKs. First one is from Hawks, whose very article was already cited in this entry, I didn't add it. The quote I added was the concluding thought of that article which is very much in line with the entirety of it. Really you can't claim its not representative of Hawks thoughts. Hawks is a respected journalist, he has written many firearms and hunting pieces. His conclusion is relevant.

McAdams article is a thoughtful piece, gives the pros and cons about the TKOF. He has real experience hunting big game in Africa and other places. My quote of his conclusion is also in line with the spirit of his article. His conclusion is largely due to the technical developments that have happened since the time of Taylor (e.g. expanding bullets) that make the TKOF results unreliable in modern times.

I do not apply undue WEIGHT to one writer. I quote two, with Hawks and McAdams, equally and without editorial comment.

The fact is that the bulk of opinion from modern experience is against the TKOF. If you like I'll add some additional references strengthening that point. All of this with the fact that scientifically the TKOF is indefensible. You can't claim my additions are TENDENTIOUS, they are mainstream.

When you really think about it, even according to its supporters, when does TKOF actually work? The claim has been reduced to big bore cartridges and loadings of Taylor's time and experience, used in head shots on elephants (and presumably rhinoceros and cape buffalo.) with non-expanding bullets. Every other variety of firearm and loading, and every firearm and loading not used on head shots of thick skinned dangerous African game are excluded. For the excluded, TKOF has no supporting data, and much counter data.

At best, TKOF was a niche application. The vast majority of cases of firearms used in killing situations are not covered by it and it will produce erroneous results for many reasons.

My addition of two mainstream quotes about it are more than fair to it. It's interesting only as an antique and in the past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * IP User, you misunderstand my intentions here, I am not defending the formula just representing it in a manner reflective of the sources available to me. If you have more WP:RS specifically about the TKOF I welcome them, because the paragraph as it currently stands does not present a WP:NPOV and so will be reverted.  The fact is the majority of sources included (and I have deliberately not included some sources that completely misrepresent what Taylor wrote because they are by definition not RS) are surprisingly complimentary about the TKOF and so the section is neutrally WP:WEIGHTed to reflect this.  And Taylor himself admits to the chief issue Hawks has with the formula which again is reflected in the section.  Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC).


 * Well, we disagree. My paragraph is neutral.  It represents mainstream consensus viewpoint from experienced people with modern observations.  I quote nothing other than the final conclusions of their articles.  That their expert conclusions are negative does not make my account weighted or non-neutral.  A clear picture of a bad thing is still a clear picture.  I will revert any change that removes it.


 * If you have modern credible sources supporting the TKOF then you should add them. The sources available to you have no meaning in our discussion unless you publish them.  It would greatly help if they were online, as mine are, so that they can be understood in full.


 * Lastly, I disagree with your statement that Hawks agrees with Taylor. Taylor admits kinetic energy might be more predictive on stopping thin skinned game.  Hawks claims the TKOF is useless altogether, elephants included.  These viewpoints are antithetical.


 * IP User, I am afraid we do not agree. You intimated you have more WP:RS, please introduce them or your unsupported paragraph will be removed. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC).


 * IP User, it has been three days since you intimated you could provide additional WP:RS, I have removed the paragraph until you can do so.  Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC).

I reverted to re-establish my quotes. They are mainstream, thoughtful, and credible, your objection reflects your bias on the matter. If you'd like introduce others that's up to you. If you further remove mine, I will replace them. This conversation is at an end. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * see User_talk:73.238.3.45 Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You say "the scope was not to cover all calibers of all times". But no such set of assumptions, limits, initial conditions, or other direction is mentioned in the article.  The reader is left to believe it is a general formula since there is nothing to the contrary stated.  It is presented as such.  No one says anything like "only to be applied to rifles beyond 40 caliber but less than (say) 60 caliber, at minimum muzzle velocity of (say) 2000 feet per second and maximum of (say) 2500 feet per second, shooting hard cast non-expanding bullets which are above average mass for caliber."


 * The article says a knock out shot to an elephant. What is a knock out shot?  Something less than a kill obviously.  Unconsciousness?  Then for how long 1 minute or 10?  Taylor and his supporters never say.  And if the output of the formula is 1.5, or 2, or 3 times for rifle X than it is for rifle Y what effect will that have on the knock time?  Taylor and the article do not say.  So what use it, in Taylor's day or now, no use.


 * You suggest this formula might help a hunter make an ethical choice regarding rifle caliber. I challenge you on this claim.  The article does not state what value causes enough damage for a quick kill and thus to be ethical.  Moreover, is it even ethical to shoot an animal without the intent to make a quick kill, i.e. the knock out shot?  Remember you are basing your ethics on the research of a poacher.


 * Without clear specific initial limiting conditions you can not say the formula was never intended to be general. Without defined resultant values you can not say what result allows ethical behavior.


 * ...and without either of these your claim that there is some 21st century usefulness is unsupported.


 * On another matter, the article you cite (Kneubuehl) is about the allowable projectile length for spin stabilized flight. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with lethality or knock out. And the level of its math is a light year beyond Taylor.  Its a red-herring.  I call shenanigans on your reference.


 * Lastly the very example cartridge in this damned article is .303 British. What ethical (or even non-suicidal) hunter would ever shoot an elephant with a 7.7mm 760 m/s 175 grain cartridge. Show one credible source that recommends it.  The Wikipedia article on it says great bears are outside of its envelope.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

________________________

Citations of additional articles criticising TKOF.

from: http://www.africanxmag.com/debunking_ballastic_myths.htm

The concluding on TKOF:

"Promotion of this formula is a prime example of the careless way in which a quasi-scientific method is seized upon, even though the originator may reject that purpose to which it is put. Taylor’s use of bullet diameter, instead of cross sectional area, is in fact mathematically incorrect, as a bullet having twice the diameter to a smaller one has in fact more than twice the cross sectional area."

and from: http://randywakeman.com/EnergyTransferandBulletBullistics.htm

the lead statement in the article:

"Hunters can be creatures of sheep-like habits, relying far too much on anecdotal evidence which is no competent evidence at all. We also like to place far, far too much value on our personal experiences. A tragic example of that is poacher John Taylor, and his antique and severely misguided "Taylor Knock-Out Value." Prolific poacher "Pondoro" had his mind made up before his TKO values were constructed. Setting aside science and common sense, Taylor promogulated peculiar, unfounded theories that still persist to this day. Poaching may be accoladed in some circles, but it seems unlikely to gain a Nobel prize anytime soon."

Other main stream criticism of Taylor's formula is usually as harsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello we know and explained more than one time that TKOF is almost outdated. Nevertheless it is still used. Please read A-Square Shock Power Index. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Response to IP user
Hello again IP User, I hope you do not object to me reorganising these conversations, they appear to have become jumbled so I have separated out the two. I will now attempt to address your various points.

Firstly, no one here should ever use this article to suggest to hunters how to make a decision in choosing a cartridge to ethically hunt, read WP:NOTADVICE to confirm this policy, and the article does not attempt to do so.

Secondly, I acknowledge that there are not enough specifics about what a knock out is, what are your thoughts on the below revised wording for the History section:

Thirdly, thank you for introducing two new sources, let us deal with them:
 * 1. Cleve Cheney's "Debunking ballastic myths" is not a WP:RS for the following reasons:
 * a. it gets the formula wrong
 * b. it deliberately mis-quotes and WP:CHERRYPICKs quotes from Taylor’s writings to make a point, for example:
 * i. Taylor does not say "there was no appreciable difference in the killing performance of the various .400’s, .415’s, .450’s, .465’s, .470’s, .475’s and 500’s", he says there is no appreciable difference in the killing performance of the .450s to .476s (he specifies the .450 Nitro Express, .450 No 2 Nitro Express, .500/450 Nitro Express and their successors following the 1907 British ban on the importation of .450 calibre ammunition into India and the Sudan, the .500/465 Nitro Express, .470 Nitro Express, .475 Nitro Express, .475 No 2 Nitro Express and the .476 Nitro Express)
 * ii. the quote "Both barrels from a .600 in the belly (of an elephant) will have little more apparent effect than a single shot from a .275 in the same place" was in reference to shot placement, not cartridge performance.
 * 2. Randy Wakeman's "Energy transfer and other bullet bullistics" is like Chuck Hawks in that all of his arguments supporting his assertion relate to small or medium bore cartridges, something Taylor specifically addresses and a criticism that is addressed in the article, but something I have attempted to place greater emphasis on in a suggested re-wording of the Critism section:

Finally, use of the .303 British as an example. Taylor himself includes several .303 British loadings in his tables, and there are numerous examples of hunters using this cartridge to hunt elephant, Karamojo Bell (who also shot over 800 elephants with a 7x57mm Mauser), Arthur Henry Neumann, James H. Sutherland and indeed Taylor himself used .303s at various times, and all less Bell switched to something in the .450 NE to .600 NE range for hunting in close country, Bell relied on his exceptional accuracy.

Remember, WP:COLLABoration is how we achieve a better article.

Ｔｏｍ, I am very keen to hear your thoughts on the above potential amendments. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC).


 * I try to look at it from several sides:
 * Every measurement-system is on the way to be outdated sometime when a new system is introduced. A good example is the Metre Convention. Everybody knows that more than 200 years later we are still dealing with conversions-tables etc. There is a need to have info about old measure systems - regardless of whether we like them or not.
 * The purpose of such measuring systems is to put different things in relation. The assumption that Taylor might have calculated differently than we are today is nonsense. Taylor's Slide Rule did the same thing as a modern pocket-calculator. Therefore, it is nonsensical to limit the examples to what Taylor has calculated most personally.
 * We can only take note of ethical approaches to hunting that were perhaps modern some 100 years ago. There is no need to correlate the personal view of anyone afterwards. This is especially true for the participants of the discussion.
 * Discussions about which measurement system would be appropriate for the 21st century are inappropriate here. It's not our business to speculate thus.
 * The focus of TKOF is related with hunting bullets. Not with cannons of any kind.
 * I hope that I could help with the explanations. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ″...extremely popular and successful smaller bore hunting cartridges such as the .303 British and the .30-06 Springfield.″ is doubful in my eyes. 303 is not popular. Both incl. 30-06 are not allowed for biggame hunting. Min. calibre = 10mm. 9,3x64 is accepted minmum for hunting elefants in some areas. Are 303 & 30-06 used for comparisations in the given references? Should it be clearyfied which scope the sources referred to? In each case i suggest NPOV and elimination of "extremely popular and successful" --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ｔｏｍ, thank you for your feedback. Yes the criticism centres on popular cartidges for deer sized game and I presume the sources include the .303 because historically it was probably the most used hunting cartridge throughout the British empire. I will look to be more specific in the wording. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC).


 * Well in former times I feel that they just used material which was available. I would have to guess about: where, in which period, which calibres were available or succesfull or popular. The 303 has declined since the 1950th see f.e. .303_British Since longtimes bigger calibers were more common on those safaris :-) But I think that is not so important for this article. Towords the IP I may suggest to move to the more general Talk:Stopping_power. For me, it looks like the pop-corn-factor is bigger there. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________

Re: TOM and CM

On your point 1.a Sigh. Cheney does not get the formula wrong. Bullet weight in grains divided by 7000 is BY DEFINITION bullet weight in pounds. Cheney merely substitutes the simpler form. Its equivalent, algebra class. So your claim 1.a above is incorrect.

This touches upon but leaves hanging the issue that mass and weight are different things. Mass is the amount of matter in an object, weight is the force that object feels as a result of its mass being accelerated by gravity. Weight and force are dimensionally equivalent. The metric unit of mass is the kilogram, and weight (force, really) is the newton. Imperial (English) units for weight include ton, stone, pound, ounce, and grain. Imperial (English) unit for mass is the slug. On earth a kilogram weighs about 2.2 pounds, a slug is about 32.2 pounds. A man's mass might be 100 kg or 6.85 slugs, and on Earth he would weigh 220 pounds or 981 newtons. On the moon his mass would not change but his weight would be about one sixth of either pounds or newtons because the gravity is weaker on the moon. In high Earth orbit, he would be close to weightless but still have the same mass.

Even on Earth, surface gravity does vary. A bullet that weighs 500 grains in Mexico City will weigh 503 grains in Oslo. Taylor's formula claims to use bullet mass in grains. This is a scientific error. Because of this, his formula's results for the same cartridge will vary by about 0.5% depending on earthly location. You can use the weight in grains or the mass in slugs (or grams for the SI-metric world.)

You should amend the formula as stated to use Weight (grains) and note that Taylor made an incorrect assumption about mass and weight equivalence. There is a Wikipedia article on this very topic (mass vs. weight)

On your claim 1.b.i you can not ascribe motive to what you consider a misquote without evidence of such motive. Further, Cheney, and authors of works outside of Wikipedia are not bound by Wikipedia's rules. Even if he did cherrypick something that wouldn't be a problem.

On your claim 1.b.ii Cheney is offering a palliative after rubbishing Taylor. He's actually agreeing with you, pointing out that Taylor appreciated the primary importance of shot placement over ballistic performance. You are objecting to a sympathy point in your own favor.

Cheney's main value is that in his conclusion he points out that Taylor's formula is scientifically incorrect (i.e. diameter used instead of cross sectional area) and thus part of the consensus harsh criticism of TKOF.

Since your objections to Cheney are incorrect or unfounded, my assertion of his relevance stands.

On your objections to Wakeman, his article compares a 12 gauge rifled slug, about .693 inches in diameter, 437 grains, travelling at 1510 feet per second. Exactly the kind of metrics Taylor would prefer. Moreover, that Wakeman agrees with Hawks is not duplication, it is consensus. Your discounting of Wakeman is incorrect.

On the reference on the hunter using 7x57 to kill large number of elephants, all I can say he has more fortitude than me. Today, a small bore would be illegal in most of Africa today, from what I have read .375 is a legal minimum to hunt elephants.

But here's the BIG question. You have included some observed knock out times. Good on you for it. The TKOF is claimed to predict knock out times. Do the TKOF predictions match the data?

Cartridge	Knock out time	TKOF (seconds) .416 Rigby	  0	          57 .470 Nitro	 300	         73 .577 Nitro	1200	        128 .600 Nitro	1800	        148

How do we translate TKOF prediction to KO seconds observation? Then, what would we expect the KO time for a (e.g.) 375 H&H to be? For the formula to be valuable this part has to work. If it doesn't we all have to admit the formula is useless in a general sense. You have the ball. I'll look for your answer.

_______________________

Taylor's formula  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear IP ! To make it short: it may be Taylor's formula is completely bullshit (if we look at it from the 21. century) . Only the original formula (with all the faults which might be included) is subject of the article. It's not our business to correct the formula. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

_________

Tom, thanks for finally admitting it is complete bullshit. You've joined the mainstream consensus on the matter. I want Hawks' concluding statement quoted in the article. You shouldn't object as you and he now agree on the value of the formula.

_________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

IP User, I want a lot of things, but life doesn't work that way. I will reiterte, Hawks' views are given due WP:WEIGHT, as are with those of other commentators. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC).

+1 + @IP: the straw man argument creates the illusion .... and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I take your comments as admission that you can not provide any source or method to make the formula you provided match the data you provided and for which you cited references and the first sentence of the main article claims is exactly its function. One of you admit it is "completely bullshit." To put a critical quotation agreeing with that admission, in a section called "Criticism" is not undue weight. It is just accurate and it is mainstream opinion.

As for using Wikipedia to make a point, it is you and the authors of this article that are trying to make a point. Specifically that somehow science and non-science deserve equal representation.

But since you so object to Hawks' clarity, I will settle for adding one sentence in the main section pointing out that Taylor's KO formula does not predict his own KO data. I'll add it.

Personally, I can't believe anyone could defend this thing with a straight face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Page protection
I am trying to add one sentence to an article. The article defines a physical action, knocking out an elephant with a firearm. It presents a formula for comparing rifle cartridges ability to do this given their muzzle velocity, weight, and diameter. The formula is published in the article. So are the predicted values of comparisons of sample cartridges from that formula. Also included are actual data on a subset of the sample of cartridges. The formula, the sample set of cartridges, and the observed data all come from the same book by the same author, specifically John Taylor. All three items are included in this article.

Prima facie inspection of all material shown in the singular article indicates the formula predicted comparisons DO NOT AGREE with the provided observations. This is not explained by the author (Taylor) or the other editors.

I am trying to add one sentence to indicate this. The other editors do not like (calvaryman and TOM) do not like the idea of making it explicit that a predictive formula does not agree with observed data. For whatever reason, they have an attachment to this formula. THEY DO NOT HAVE A NPOV. I do. I am merely pointing out that the author does not explain his formula's inconsistencies. They repeatedly revert my addition. They are the ones being disruptive. I have compromised with them on several points but they are irrational because of their attachment to a formula that does not predict observation. One of them even admits it is "completely bullshit" (his words). Yes they do anything to defend it.

I will not be bullied. I will continue to add my sentence to this article. I will not relent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello IP User, I posted this message above but you do not seem to have seen it, so I am moving it here. This page has been protected from editing by contributors without accounts and certain permissions. You will notice that after you make edits they are not visible on the page. If you wish to contribute to the page, please outline your proposed contributions here. Please ensure any suggested contributions adhere to all of the policy that has been previously quoted to you, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC). Response moved, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC).