.223 for bear, mountain goat, deer, elk, and moose.

[mlevimadden]

No the point you are missing is that a skilled shooter can put the first round from any rifle he is familiar with exactly where he wants it. I can. Training with heavier recoiling rifles to get to that point does take longer. When I pull the trigger shooting at an elk I am not thinking about the rifles recoil, just about placing the crosshairs in the right place and squeezing the trigger. Flaws in my shooting position? With experience you learn how to hold your rifle properly without thinking about it. The reality is that yes shooters with little experience will always shoot lighter rifles better. However light recoil does not always mean inexperienced shooters will properly place their bullets on game. As for moving the gun more during the shot this is obviously true. I have seen my bullet impact many times shooting my medium powered rifles, my 30-06 in particular. Is that because I shoot with both eyes open? Or is it because it's stock fits me perfectly? Combination of both factors?

So based on the red text in your statement above, you have never missed a target in practice, never had a bad hit on an animal hunting, or never missed an animal while hunting?

 

[FredH]

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the energy calculation and it's value. The application of energy is what counts. I feel calculated energy is more of a method to measure destructive power volume. Meaning if you were able to measure the volume of a wound channel with differing levels of energy the bullet with the bigger calculated energy value would make a larger void in the test material. If you were to fire the same projectile into a test media at say 2000 fps and 2500 fps the latter would displace more test material. Mass also comes into play. I'm guessing a 200 grain bullet at 2000 fps would displace more test material than a bullet traveling the same velocity but weighing 100 grains. In measuring this on a volume level shape of the displacement won't matter. Years ago a lot of bullet testing was done in modeling clay and it seemed to prove this theory out.

 

[rclouse79]

So velocity matters…

I have been reading a lot of the discussion/arguments around caliber. It is hard to argue with the effectiveness of smaller calibers with the correct bullet. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I have read "terminal energy does not matter, velocity does". I was just pointing out that the velocity of a bullet can be expressed in terms of its kinetic energy and mass, disregarding rotational kinetic energy.

 

[FredH]

So based on the red text in your statement above, you have never missed a target in practice, never had a bad hit on an animal hunting, or never missed an animal while hunting?

I have never wounded and lost a game animal. In my youth I did make a few misses. I have had poor bullet performance cause some tracking and difficult retrieval. When shooting at steel or distant rocks I often use the impact of a miss to adjust my aim. I don't shoot at game animals unless I know where my bullet is going to hit. That means I don't shoot unless conditions favor a hit where I want the bullet to land.

 

[BjornF16]

I have been reading a lot of the discussion/arguments around caliber. It is hard to argue with the effectiveness of smaller calibers with the correct bullet. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I have read "terminal energy does not matter, velocity does". I was just pointing out that the velocity of a bullet can be expressed in terms of its kinetic energy and mass, disregarding rotational kinetic energy.

Velocity at impact is real; KE is merely a calculation.

Two bullets of equal mass impacting at same velocity can have wildly differing permanent and temporary wound cavities (“wound volume”) yet have the same calculated KE.

So really, as the OP stated, bullet construction and impact velocity is what matters

 

[FredH]

I have been reading a lot of the discussion/arguments around caliber. It is hard to argue with the effectiveness of smaller calibers with the correct bullet. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times I have read "terminal energy does not matter, velocity does". I was just pointing out that the velocity of a bullet can be expressed in terms of its kinetic energy and mass, disregarding rotational kinetic energy.

So if terminal energy doesn't matter why aren't we shooting 17 grain bullets at everything? It is hard to argue against the effectiveness of larger cartridges also. Who is saying terminal energy does not matter? The application of energy is what matters. If the energy destroys heart and lung tissue then all is good. A bullet that applies energy in the proper area of the animal is going to kill well. a 77 grain bullet at 1805 fps possesses 556.9 foot pounds of energy. If this is considered the lower end of the velocity spectrum where expansion and disruption of tissue are acceptable when placed in the heart lung region of a deer then the velocity and mass of the bullet were adequate.

 

[FredH]

Velocity at impact is real; KE is merely a calculation.

Two bullets of equal mass impacting at same velocity can have wildly differing permanent and temporary wound cavities (“wound volume”) yet have the same calculated KE.

So really, as the OP stated, bullet construction and impact velocity is what matters

Agreed with the exception that the volume displaced by two different bullets with the exact same energy level and mass will be the same, the shape and depth of that volume are what can be different.

 

[rclouse79]

Velocity at impact is real; KE is merely a calculation.

Two bullets of equal mass impacting at same velocity can have wildly differing permanent and temporary wound cavities (“wound volume”) yet have the same calculated KE.

So really, as the OP stated, bullet construction and impact velocity is what matters

I agree. I was just pointing out that you can't have velocity without kinetic energy, so it doesn't make much sense to say kinetic energy does not matter. There is a corresponding kinetic energy for every velocity for a given bullet. If there is a minimum velocity for bullet upset, there is also a corresponding minimum kinetic energy to describe the same thing.

 

[sierracharlie338]

So if terminal energy doesn't matter why aren't we shooting 17 grain bullets at everything? It is hard to argue against the effectiveness of larger cartridges also. Who is saying terminal energy does not matter? The application of energy is what matters. If the energy destroys heart and lung tissue then all is good. A bullet that applies energy in the proper area of the animal is going to kill well. a 77 grain bullet at 1805 fps possesses 556.9 foot pounds of energy. If this is considered the lower end of the velocity spectrum where expansion and disruption of tissue are acceptable when placed in the heart lung region of a deer then the velocity and mass of the bullet were adequate.

Any chance you want to start your own thread to be a physics professor in? Just curious because I failed physics in high school and don’t care to hear a lecture about it nor do many others here, I would assume, maybe I’m wrong.

This thread was started as a place for people that choose to use 224 caliber bullets for hunting to post their experiences with said caliber. If you don’t use it, that’s cool but you won’t change the internet’s mind by arguing here. Just some food for thought…

Oh and before you say well other people are doing it, it’s because you came and shit on a thread just because first.

 

[BjornF16]

I agree. I was just pointing out that you can't have velocity without kinetic energy, so it doesn't make much sense to say kinetic energy does not matter. There is a corresponding kinetic energy for every velocity for a given bullet. If there is a minimum velocity for bullet upset, there is also a corresponding minimum kinetic energy to describe the same thing.

What is easier:
1. Give a minimum impact velocity for a particular bullet type (e.g. TMK min velocity is 1800 fps for desired fragmentation/upset), or
2. Calculate the KE for every TMK bullet with 1800 fps velocity to derive that bullets’ KE

 

[rclouse79]

What is easier:
1. Give a minimum impact velocity for a particular bullet type (e.g. TMK min velocity is 1800 fps for desired fragmentation/upset), or
2. Calculate the KE for every TMK bullet with 1800 fps velocity to derive that bullets’ KE

Velocity. Just because the other is more complicated does not mean it is invalid. I know this is not really productive to the overall thread and will drop it after this one. I was throwing out an observation I had that most people won't care about. Carry on.

 

[BjornF16]

Agreed with the exception that the volume displaced by two different bullets with the exact same energy level and mass will be the same, the shape and depth of that volume are what can be different.

Please elaborate…that paragraph seems contradictory

 

[FredH]

Any chance you want to start your own thread to be a physics professor in? Just curious because I failed physics in high school and don’t care to hear a lecture about it nor do many others here, I would assume, maybe I’m wrong.

This thread was started as a place for people that choose to use 224 caliber bullets for hunting to post their experiences with said caliber. If you don’t use it, that’s cool but you won’t change the internet’s mind by arguing here. Just some food for thought…

Oh and before you say well other people are doing it, it’s because you came and shit on a thread just because first.

It is obvious that being a professor is beyond your reach. We are simply discussing velocity, energy and mass's relation to tissue disruption and since we are talking about a cartridge on the lower level of the energy spectrum speculation on it is relevant. I do use 22 centerfires for hunting, I just built myself a 22 ARC and I am not shitting on this thread. You are with your off topic BS.

 

[FredH]

Please elaborate…that paragraph seems contradictory

Ok say we have two different 77 grain bullets pushed to the same velocity. One that penetrates deeply and one that makes a shallower but wider disruption of material. If we had a media such as modeling clay that doesn't collapse upon itself and filled the voids caused by the two bullets with a liquid and then measured that liquid's weight it should be the same.

 

[Taudisio]

Ok say we have two different 77 grain bullets pushed to the same velocity. One that penetrates deeply and one that makes a shallower but wider disruption of material. If we had a media such as modeling clay that doesn't collapse upon itself and filled the voids caused by the two bullets with a liquid and then measured that liquid's weight it should be the same.

This is an interesting thought. I’d love to see the results from a TTXS vs a VMAX vs a FMJ. I personally doubt all 3 would make the same volume of disruption. But I have no evidence to say one way or the other.

 

[FredH]

This is an interesting thought. I’d love to see the results from a TTXS vs a VMAX vs a FMJ. I personally doubt all 3 would make the same volume of disruption. But I have no evidence to say one way or the other.

Same here. Years ago an author named John Lachuk (spelling?) did a good bit of experimenting using plaster of paris and modeling clay. He must have been a very patient guy but his testing seemed to bear this out. It was hard to get exact results but he came pretty close.

 

[BjornF16]

Ok say we have two different 77 grain bullets pushed to the same velocity. One that penetrates deeply and one that makes a shallower but wider disruption of material. If we had a media such as modeling clay that doesn't collapse upon itself and filled the voids caused by the two bullets with a liquid and then measured that liquid's weight it should be the same.

I don’t believe that is the case when comparing a solid versus fragmenting cup and core, or even fragmenting “solid”.

Energy doesn’t kill…tearing and crushing of vital tissue (or blood loss) is what kills.

 

[FredH]

I don’t believe that is the case when comparing a solid versus fragmenting cup and core, or even fragmenting “solid”.

Energy doesn’t kill…tearing and crushing of vital tissue (or blood loss) is what kills.

But energy is how we measure the destruction velocity and mass can create. Bullet construction is the method we use to disperse energy. Energy as calculated is not a perfect measure but it is what we use.

 

[BjornF16]

But energy is how we measure the destruction velocity and mass can create. Bullet construction is the method we use to disperse energy. Energy as calculated is not a perfect measure but it is what we use.

"can create" would be potential energy.

I don't subscribe to the KE hypothesis as a killing mechanism.

 

[FredH]

"can create" would be potential energy.

I don't subscribe to the KE hypothesis as a killing mechanism.

All the kinetic energy calculation does is make an effort to describe power. Power is not directly correlated with killing. Two bullets of different construction, say a FMJ and a Nosler Partiton can have the same level of energy yet their killing ability will hinge on shot placement. With head shots both will kill instantly. With non CNS hits the Partition will kill more quickly. I have never met anyone who felt KE was the only mechanism involved in killing.