He states, “I won’t get into the math and physics of it all, just here...”, implying that he COULD do so in great detail, if he wanted to.
In fact, he CAN’T. All he does is point out that downrange the velocity of a bullet does, in fact, diminish —BIIIG DEAL.
He also shows off his head-spinning math skills by averaging 2,200 fps and 3,700 fps —BLEW MY SOCKS OFF, he did... /sarc
ahhh...similar to what I say when people ask me if I have read some book by a European or other foreign language offer...
questioner: Have you read XX?
Me: “Not in English.”
If he could actually DO the math and physics of it, he’d know that almost all .224 bullets extant have a really poor ballistic coefficient (BC) and they bleed off energy at a ferocious rate as they go downrange.
Kinetic energy is 0.5 * Mass * Velocity^2, so as the velocity bleeds off from a poor BC, we get a geometric drop in the kinetic energy.
This is why those of us who have been ‘round and ‘round and ‘round the ballistics issue in hunting eventually all come back to the idea that “mass is your friend” - because while your bullets lose velocity on their way downrange, they don’t typically lose mass.
Which is why I’d much rather hunt elephants (or anything else large) with a .45-70 launching a 400 to 500gr pill at 1700 down to 1350fps instead of a .223 launching a 55gr pill at 3000 fps. Sure, the .45-70 has a trajectory like a mortar. But when the bullet gets downrange... it will do something, even if it is down to 800fps. A .223 bled down to 1000 fps is down to .22LR velocities — and will likely deliver .22LR results.