7mm Rem Mag elk rifle

[Vandy321]

Ok. How deep will a bullet penetrate with 3,000 ft-lbs versus 2,000? How wide will the wound be for both?


Please cite a single legitimate terminal
ballistics study that states that ft-lbs of energy is a wounding mechanism. You’ll want to Google “fbi terminal ballistics”, Dr Martin Fackler terminal ballistics, Dr Gary K. Robert’s, “International Wound Ballistics Symposium”, Navel Crane Wound ballistics”, etc.


Hydrostatic shock is a myth that keeps being repeated, and despite numerous legitimate medical studies has not been shown to exist at all, and has no effect on killing.

It's a pretty contested topic...for every study you can find saying it's a myth, you will find an equal ammount backing it.

Pretty similar to "does the covid 19 vaccine work"

Energy is king, to say it's not is simply false.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Hydrostatic shock is a myth that keeps being repeated, and despite numerous legitimate medical studies has not been shown to exist at all, and has no effect on killing.

I read an interesting report years ago from a PH involved in a large scale culling operation in Africa. Hundreds of various animals were killed with various typical rifles. All were shot in the typical heart/lung vital area.

Some dropped stone dead and others died quickly with similar shot placement. I'm sure most of us have witnessed similar results ourselves.

They had some biologists and students doing various studies on the dead animals in the name of research.

In case of the animals that died instantly, blood vessels in the brain had ruptured and caused instant CNS failure. In the animals that didn't die instantly, the blood vessels in the brain hadn't ruptured.

Their theory was that in some cases the bullets caused a significant spike in blood pressure and ruptured the vessels in the brain.

It was an interesting article and somewhat supportive of the theory of hydrostatic shock. Makes some sense to me in theory, an animal that has its lungs or heart destroyed won't typically die instantly. But in practice we've all killed something stone dead instantly when shot in the heart or lungs. We've all also seen the same shot placement lead to an animal that runs 50-100 yards before dying.

Interesting stuff and we all have our opinions.

 

[Formidilosus]

It's a pretty contested topic...for every study you can find saying it's a myth, you will find an equal ammount backing it.

That is not correct. Terminal ballistics is a known thing. The only place it is contested is gun writers and the uninformed. I gave you search tittles that will lead to legitimate, peer reviewed medical studies, from both the DOJ and DOD.

Here’s a hint- almost all of the bullets used for hunting now we’re designed and tested using the methodologies that those links will provide.

Energy is king, to say it's not is simply false.

Ok. So tell me how deep and how wide a wound will be from 3,000 ft-lbs of energy versus 2,000? And how much energy do you think that bullets had on the elk I posted?

 

[ARK_Ginger]

It's a pretty contested topic...for every study you can find saying it's a myth, you will find an equal ammount backing it.

Pretty similar to "does the covid 19 vaccine work"

Energy is king, to say it's not is simply false.

You're missing the forest for the trees. No energy number is going to tell you how a bullet will perform in an animal. 1500 ft-lb solid brass machined projectile will likely underperform a 800 ft-lb properly designed cup and core projectile

 

[Vandy321]

You're missing the forest for the trees. No energy number is going to tell you how a bullet will perform in an animal. 1500 ft-lb solid brass machined projectile will likely underperform a 800 ft-lb properly designed cup and core projectile

You're comparing apples to oranges, friend. Use the same bullet construction and tell me that energy is not king, all else being equal. You can't.

 

[Formidilosus]

I read an interesting report years ago from a PH involved in a large scale culling operation in Africa. Hundreds of various animals were killed with various typical rifles. All were shot in the typical heart/lung vital area.

Some dropped stone dead and others died quickly with similar shot placement. I'm sure most of us have witnessed similar results ourselves.

They had some biologists and students doing various studies on the dead animals in the name of research.

In case of the animals that died instantly, blood vessels in the brain had ruptured and caused instant CNS failure. In the animals that didn't die instantly, the blood vessels in the brain hadn't ruptured.

Every single “study” that has tried to say the above, and the have been numerous, has not passed peer review. That exact hypothesis has been tested thousand of times on live animals in controlled environments with surgeons doing necropsies post mortem. It has been proven false in every single case.

Interesting stuff and we all have our opinions.

It isn’t an opinion. Google those things posted above.

 

[Vandy321]

Every single “study” that has tried to say the above, and the have been numerous, has not passed peer review. That exact hypothesis has been tested thousand of times on live animals in controlled environments with surgeons doing necropsies post mortem. It has been proven false in every single case.





It isn’t an opinion. Google those things posted above.

Enjoy that 6mm dude. You tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself.

Energy is king. If you dont agree, please explain how from 2 arrows of equal weight, traveling at different speeds, one can punch through bone and one can't?

I'll take a magnum of any flavor for that quartering to shot vs a hope an a prayer that a 6mm can pull it off, odds are, in most cases, it can't. I'd rather fill the freezer than pass on that shot, or wound that animal.

 

[ericwh]

RIP the original topic.

 

[Maverick1]

Enjoy that 6mm dude. You tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself.

Energy is king. If you dont agree, please explain how from 2 arrows of equal weight, traveling at different speeds, one can punch through bone and one can't?

I'll take a magnum of any flavor for that quartering to shot vs a hope an a prayer that a 6mm can pull it off, odds are, in most cases, it can't. I'd rather fill the freezer than pass on that shot, or wound that animal.

You typed "arrow" and "energy" - my arrow has about 80 ft-lbs of energy. It passes cleanly through every animal - from moose, bear, elk, and deer - and results in quick kills. The figures you cite above are considerably higher, no?

 

[Maverick1]

RIP the original topic.

7mm Rem Mag elk rifle

One of the newer Tikka options with a threaded muzzle would fit the bill. https://www.sportsmans.com/shooting-gear-gun-supplies/rifles/tikka-t3x-lite-veil-k2-camo-bolt-action-rifle-7mm-remington-magnum-243in/p/1687514

www.rokslide.com

 

[Vandy321]

You typed "arrow" and "energy" - my arrow has about 80 ft-lbs of energy. It passes cleanly through every animal - from moose, bear, elk, and deer - and results in quick kills. The figures you cite above are considerably higher, no?

Let just assess for a minute that is not shoulder you are passing through. Would it pass through shoulder at 80 ft/lb,aube maybe not, but to prove a point let's say no. Now assuming quality enough components to to handle it, let's say that 80 ft/lb broadhead (or bullet) would not pass through, if you increase the energy enough, assuming it can hold together, it will. So again, energy is king when all else is equal...is it not? If not, why not?

 

[ARK_Ginger]

You're comparing apples to oranges, friend. Use the same bullet construction and tell me that energy is not king, all else being equal. You can't.

I thought we were talking about terminal performance in elk. And if that's the case bullet construction is king, not some arbitrary energy number.

The same goes for arrows really. Broadheads construction/sharpness is king.

If we're going to talk about energy and killing elk lets talk about less energy in the shoulder and the actual amount of terminal damage we need to make those dreaded quartering shots.

I do get where you're trying to go, but the more energy you're getting with a magnum isn't leading to a more dead animal when we're talking about good bullets that are already capable of the quartering shots.

 

[Vandy321]

I do get where you're trying to go, but the more energy you're getting with a magnum isn't leading to a more dead animal when we're talking about good bullets that are already capable of the quartering shots

But it is when the 7RM punches through that shoulder and the 6mm doesn't carry enough energy to do so. Apples to apples, same bullet construction, energy is king and can easily be the dif between a wounded animal and a clean kill.

Can I tell you what KE# that is, nope. I can't. Can you speed the 6mm up to speeds where it equals the KE of a slower/heavier 7RM, sure..but I don't think any of the ft/lb numbers on charts show that is realistic with average speeds from both rifles.

 

[Formidilosus]

But it is when the 7RM punches through that shoulder and the 6mm doesn't carry enough energy to do so. Apples to apples, same bullet construction, energy is king and can easily be the dif between a wounded animal and a clean kill.

What 6mm game bullet won’t penetrate a “shoulder”? And by shoulder, are you meaning the scapula? The humerus joint? Or the humerus itself?

Do you understand that the lower “energy” means lower impact velocity and therefor deeper penetration, not less. Literally the less energy at impact with the same bullet, the more likely it will penetrate through bone.

 

[Vandy321]

What 6mm game bullet won’t penetrate a “shoulder”? And by shoulder, are you meaning the scapula? The humerus joint? Or the humerus itself?

Do you understand that the lower “energy” means lower impact velocity and therefor deeper penetration, not less. Literally the less energy at impact with the same bullet, the more likely it will penetrate through bone.

Thank you for proving my point. In your scenario, the slower, heavier 7RM will penetrate better than that faster 6mm of the same construction, assuming you are equating that deeper penetrarion to that bullet not coming apart.

How hard is this dude. Let's backyard science it up for you. Throw a baseball at your homes patio door. At 20mph it may not penetrate, but that same baseball at 90 mph will. Why?

...because energy is king.

 

[Formidilosus]

Thank you for proving my point. In your scenario, the slower, heavier 7RM will penetrate better than that faster 6mm of the same construction, assuming you are equating that deeper penetrarion to that bullet not coming apart.

You said a 6mm wouldn’t go through a “shoulder” (you still haven’t answered my question of what do you mean by “shoulder” as there is quite a bit of difference), yet a 6mm like I used will go through every elks shoulder alive, and penetrate both lungs from touching the muzzle to way beyond the elevation anyone has available in their scope. You’re using fallacies. Good 6mm bullets kill just fine, and have no issues going through bone- your energy numbers do not tell you that.

 

[Vandy321]

You said a 6mm wouldn’t go through a “shoulder” (you still haven’t answered my question of what do you mean by “shoulder” as there is quite a bit of difference), yet a 6mm like I used will go through every elks shoulder alive, and penetrate both lungs from touching the muzzle to way beyond the elevation anyone has available in their scope. You’re using fallacies. Good 6mm bullets kill just fine, and have no issues going through bone- your energy numbers do not tell you that.

I never said a 6mm won't go through a shoulder. Please don't put words in my mouth to justify your erroneous arguement.

I said there is a point that 6mm won't penetrate when a 7RM would.

If you prefer to be undergunned, that's your call, I don't care. But pretending a 6mm is an equally capable caliber on elk at all ranges is simply false. Same as how a 7RM is inferior to a .30cal magnum of pick your flavor.

I also don't see a single one of your photos provided as evidence that went through shoulder...maybe the 100 yard shot? They look to be double lung or heart. So again, where's the evidence to back up that statement that a 6mm "will go through every elks shoulder alive, and penetrate both lungs from touching the muzzle to way beyond the elevation anyone has available in their scope" Sorry dude, I don't buy that for a minute.

 

[Maverick1]

 

[Vandy321]

Remind me again what you've contributed to this thread, with the exception that your bow/arrow combo produced 80 ft/lb of energy?

 

[seand]

Thank you for proving my point. In your scenario, the slower, heavier 7RM will penetrate better than that faster 6mm of the same construction, assuming you are equating that deeper penetrarion to that bullet not coming apart.

How hard is this dude. Let's backyard science it up for you. Throw a baseball at your homes patio door. At 20mph it may not penetrate, but that same baseball at 90 mph will. Why?

...because energy is king.

That’s apples to oranges - Compare like for like. A 308win will penetrate deeper than a 300 win mag with same/same bullets. 7rm won’t necessarily out penetrate a 6mm, it depends on velocity and bullet, the larger diameter doesn’t necessarily aid in penetration.

Kinetic Energy is the potential to do work, it doesn’t represent how the work is done, or accurately describe size of would channel/ tissue destruction/ penetration. .