Does Energy have the potential to affect terminal performance?

[Pharmseller]

Prime rib Christmas Eve.




P

 

[Carl Ross]

All models are wrong, some models are useful.

The most useful model of bullet performance I’ve seen to date is…X bullet type performs acceptably between Y1 (upper threshold) and Y2 (lower threshold) impact velocities.

Once I started thinking in these terms, terminal ballistics started to add up for me.

 

[Wrench]

All models are wrong, some models are useful.

The most useful model of bullet performance I’ve seen to date is…X bullet type performs acceptably between Y1 (upper threshold) and Y2 (lower threshold) impact velocities.

Once I started thinking in these terms, terminal ballistics started to add up for me.

Bingo. It's not 1986 anymore and there's not an add for corlokt bullets next to zumbo telling us 1500 ft/lbs is the minimum to kill an elk.

 

[10E]

In my head it makes more sense that there is a balance or ratio of mass to velocity to make the energy number have any significance. I agree 100% energy alone does not tell the whole story and I’ve never made that claim. Tip the scales too much in favor of mass or velocity (or really any factor dealing with a projectile) and the terminal performance suffers.

 

[Boonie327]

The basis of starting this thread/debate all over again reminds me of the guy we all know that buys all the cool expensive tools/toys and then makes life complicated trying to find a use for them. Some pointy head decided that energy HAS to be relevant to how bullets kill at some point and people have been shoehorning it into the equation since then. Maybe it was relevant when bullets sucked. We all read about it from the fudd writers growing up, but some people can’t seem to let it go. These are the same guys that tell us we need pretty mushrooms and that it’s normal to need to rezero our scopes repeatedly. It’s not true and relevant just because someone wrote it in a magazine.

 

[mtnwrunner]

View attachment 647492

Prime rib Christmas Eve.




P

Now, THAT is some damn fine looking energy.

Randy

 

[10E]

The basis of starting this thread/debate all over again reminds me of the guy we all know that buys all the cool expensive tools/toys and then makes life complicated trying to find a use for them. Some pointy head decided that energy HAS to be relevant to how bullets kill at some point and people have been shoehorning it into the equation since then. Maybe it was relevant when bullets sucked. We all read about it from the fudd writers growing up, but some people can’t seem to let it go. These are the same guys that tell us we need pretty mushrooms and that it’s normal to need to rezero our scopes repeatedly. It’s not true and relevant just because someone wrote it in a magazine.

Hey man if your minds not willing or open enough to explore it maybe this isn’t the thread for you. Call me an idiot and go about your life following whatever the current rokslide forum scientist are writing today. So quick to discredit past observations and blindly accept the new ones.

Are you going to claim that energy had no effect on killing a game animal with a center fire rifle? Just because it is not very well understood doesn’t mean that it is worthless.

 

[Wrench]

In my head it makes more sense that there is a balance or ratio of mass to velocity to make the energy number have any significance. I agree 100% energy alone does not tell the whole story and I’ve never made that claim. Tip the scales too much in favor of mass or velocity (or really any factor dealing with a projectile) and the terminal performance suffers.

You're trying to rationalize bullet performance as a constant when it is far more dynamic. Watch gel tests on any bullet you choose and watch the diminishing returns of velocity. There's a point where excess velocity hurts performance.....partions and a frames excluded, for the most part.

There's no way to put a rule on bullet performance in relation to energy as a blanket statement. Bullets all behave differently at different speeds in different media.

I suggest paying attention to the guys who have experience with bullet performance and listen to what they did and how they did it along with what they used.

Form is telling people that 77tmk is a perfect bullet in it's velocity window from experience. I have claimed that same claim for a few other bullets myself. I don't get a kick back but I do kill a lot of deer and elk and shared my observations.

 

[10E]

You're trying to rationalize bullet performance as a constant when it is far more dynamic. Watch gel tests on any bullet you choose and watch the diminishing returns of velocity. There's a point where excess velocity hurts performance.....partions and a frames excluded, for the most part.

There's no way to put a rule on bullet performance in relation to energy as a blanket statement. Bullets all behave differently at different speeds in different media.

I suggest paying attention to the guys who have experience with bullet performance and listen to what they did and how they did it along with what they used.

Form is telling people that 77tmk is a perfect bullet in it's velocity window from experience. I have claimed that same claim for a few other bullets myself. I don't get a kick back but I do kill a lot of deer and elk and shared my observations.

I think you just reinforced my points. Did you actually read my post? I said it is not constant and it’s more of a ratio/ balance. Tip the scale too much in favor of velocity without balancing it with increased mass and you will reach the point of diminishing returns.

 

[Gorp2007]

In my head it makes more sense that there is a balance or ratio of mass to velocity to make the energy number have any significance. I agree 100% energy alone does not tell the whole story and I’ve never made that claim. Tip the scales too much in favor of mass or velocity (or really any factor dealing with a projectile) and the terminal performance suffers.

I think that balance that you’re talking about is just another way of thinking about optimal velocity windows. If a given bullet has optimal performance between 1800-3000 fps, then you’ll see decreased performance above that peak velocity. Your preferred solution seems to involve adding mass, but an equally valid solution would be to just reduce velocity and keep that bullet in the preferred velocity window. Reducing velocity would be the preference for most on here because it will retain optimal bullet performance while also reducing recoil, which improves hit rates and makes the whole system better as a result.

 

[ORJoe]

Energy is a byproduct which can be calculated if you want, but is not the answer to anything.

One bullet at two different speeds, more speed will do more damage. That more speed means more energy is coincidence. People have known the first part forever and attributed it to the second.

Completely different bullets (.223 vs .308) at the same speed can easily do the same damage even though the energy is vastly different. This is what the 223 thread shows.

Similar but not the same bullets at the same speed can have the same energy but do completely different damage. 147gr .30 cal FMJ vs 147gr 6.5mm ELD vs 150gr .30 cal Interbond or whatever all impacting at the same speed will have the same energy but different results. You already know this because one box has a picture of a deer on it, one has a picture of a target and one has a picture of a refrigerator in a gravel pit.

So from the first perspective you see more energy doing more damage and understandably roll with it.
But then seeing different energy doing the same damage and the same energy doing different damage should make you realize "Maybe that's not how it is"

 

[10E]

I think that balance that you’re talking about is just another way of thinking about optimal velocity windows. If a given bullet has optimal performance between 1800-3000 fps, then you’ll see decreased performance above that peak velocity. Your preferred solution seems to involve adding mass, but an equally valid solution would be to just reduce velocity and keep that bullet in the preferred velocity window. Reducing velocity would be the preference for most on here because it will retain optimal bullet performance while also reducing recoil, which improves hit rates and makes the whole system better as a result.

I agree 100% my point would be if I increase the the mass to match this hypothetical balance between mass and velocity (or we could say bullet to weight and velocity window) would it not increase the potential for greater terminal performance?

 

[Boonie327]

Hey man if your minds not willing or open enough to explore it maybe this isn’t the thread for you. Call me an idiot and go about your life following whatever the current rokslide forum scientist are writing today. So quick to discredit past observations and blindly accept the new ones.

Are you going to claim that energy had no effect on killing a game animal with a center fire rifle? Just because it is not very well understood doesn’t mean that it is worthless.

Hey man, my mind is plenty open. Was I skeptical of the .223 thing? Yes. Have I changed my mind? Yes. I think you need to be more open minded to the fact that you’re trying to rationalize the use of a parameter that has no bearing on killing as it’s been used in the past.

What past observations are being discredited? Please explain.

Of course energy has an impact on how bullets perform…that’s not being argued. Trying to shoehorn it into a useable parameter that we can utilize is the problem. The simple fact is that each bullet design behaves differently at a given weight at a given velocity. Why make it harder than it needs to be when you can easily comprehend that you need to be in a certain velocity window for a certain bullet?

Do you continually calculate your speed going down the road based on rpm with given tires and gear ratios or do you just observe the speedometer?? Why make it harder for the sake of insisting energy is important for killing??

 

[Macintosh]

May not be perfectly representative, but seems appropriate.

Would you rather be shooting something that puts your projectile at:
1) point A, with massive kinetic energy (and recoil), which produces a caliber-diameter hole in the animal
2) point B, which reliably kills the animal quickly and humanely, while also being pretty darn shootable,
Or
3) point C, which also kills the animal very quickly, but with massively too much damage resulting in excessive meat loss as well as big recoil?
4) point D, which kills the animal dead with a comfortably-sized wound channel, but ranks fairly high(er) on the recoil scale.

If this is somewhat accurate at least in spirit, i think it makes it clear that there are a range of options to achieve acceptable results, and while “energy”, however that is measured, might be correlated to amount of damage given the “same” projectile, it is a somewhat useless measure by itself that is not predictive of how much damage is done to an animal and whether that amount of damage falls into the desired level of performance. Given that, it seems to me that energy is not at all predictive of “good performance” and therefore probably causes more harm than good in these discussions.

 

[10E]

Hey man, my mind is plenty open. Was I skeptical of the .223 thing? Yes. Have I changed my mind? Yes. I think you need to be more open minded to the fact that you’re trying to rationalize the use of a parameter that has no bearing on killing as it’s been used in the past.

What past observations are being discredited? Please explain.

Of course energy has an impact on how bullets perform…that’s not being argued. Trying to shoehorn it into a useable parameter that we can utilize is the problem. The simple fact is that each bullet design behaves differently at a given weight at a given velocity. Why make it harder than it needs to be when you can easily comprehend that you need to be in a certain velocity window for a certain bullet?

Do you continually calculate your speed going down the road based on rpm with given tires and gear ratios or do you just observe the speedometer?? Why make it harder for the sake of insisting energy is important for killing??

The goal is not to make it harder. If you like your method of this bullet at this velocity window that’s fine a have no problem with that.

Assuming I stay within the velocity and mass window balance point of a projectile what could I draw from a lower energy number? it has a lower potential for terminal performance. In other words it can do less work to the bullet or the target.

x bullet at a given velocity range does not give me that information. It tells me what is optimal for that mass and velocity. That is why I don’t think we can just deem energy as useless. It is potential for work.

 

[jimh406]

Energy is only useless if you shoot a low energy round. However, there are multiple variables. Energy is only one of them. I think most people who consider energy are simply using what’s worked for them, but they probably used the same type bullet in different calibers. Change the bullet type/range, and different things matter more.

 

[Gorp2007]

I agree 100% my point would be if I increase the the mass to match this hypothetical balance between mass and velocity (or we could say bullet to weight and velocity window) would it not increase the potential for greater terminal performance?

I would say that terminal tissue damage would increase, not necessarily terminal performance. Like most things in life, too much of a good thing is still too much. Like @Marbles pointed out in the chart up top, as you increase tissue damage you go from not enough, to just right, to too much. Controlling for bullet types, a good example would be going from a 6.5CM launching a 147gr ELD-M at 2800 fps to a 300 RUM shooting a 225 ELD-M at 2900 fps. Will the 300 RUM produce more tissue damage? Absolutely. But the animal won't be any deader so I wouldn't say that terminal performance has improved at all. Would anyone interested in eating the animals they shoot want to hit a whitetail with that 225 ELD-M? Not if they want to eat anything from the front half of the animal.

 

[10E]

May not be perfectly representative, but seems appropriate.

Would you rather be shooting something that puts your projectile at:
1) point A, with massive kinetic energy (and recoil), which produces a caliber-diameter hole in the animal
2) point B, which reliably kills the animal quickly and humanely, while also being pretty darn shootable,
Or
3) point C, which also kills the animal very quickly, but with massively too much damage resulting in excessive meat loss as well as big recoil?
4) point D, which kills the animal dead with a comfortably-sized wound channel, but ranks fairly high(er) on the recoil scale.

If this is somewhat accurate at least in spirit, i think it makes it clear that there are a range of options to achieve acceptable results, and while “energy”, however that is measured, might be correlated to amount of damage given the “same” projectile, it is a somewhat useless measure by itself that is not predictive of how much damage is done to an animal and whether that amount of damage falls into the desired level of performance. Given that, it seems to me that energy is not at all predictive of “good performance” and therefore probably causes more harm than good in these discussions.

View attachment 647606

This could fall in the arguments not being made section.

I do not disagree that balance is probably the safest and best all around strategy when it comes to hunting.

Meat damage is a very subjective topic. Meat damage also has a lot to do with bullet construction and shot placement/ shot angle (both of which are not being argued or challenged). Don’t really want to argue it that much further but if you strike a major muscle group or a major muscle group with a bone inside it with a bullet that is optimized to rapidly fragment in the target meat damage is going to be pretty excessive (again very subjective to opinion and why that is not being argued).

 

[10E]

I would say that terminal tissue damage would increase, not necessarily terminal performance. Like most things in life, too much of a good thing is still too much. Like @Marbles pointed out in the chart up top, as you increase tissue damage you go from not enough, to just right, to too much. Controlling for bullet types, a good example would be going from a 6.5CM launching a 147gr ELD-M at 2800 fps to a 300 RUM shooting a 225 ELD-M at 2900 fps. Will the 300 RUM produce more tissue damage? Absolutely. But the animal won't be any deader so I wouldn't say that terminal performance has improved at all. Would anyone interested in eating the animals they shoot want to hit a whitetail with that 225 ELD-M? Not if they want to eat anything from the front half of the animal.

This also falls in the arguments not being made section. we all know that bullet construction plays a large role in what type of work is being performed and how quickly it is performed.

The animal is dead arguments also fall under arguments that are not being made as well. By your logic a sharp stick would produce drastically less meat damage and still get the job done.

 

[WeiserBucks]

@10E what type of hunting do you do the most and how long have you been doing it? What have you seen succeed vs fail in your cartridge and bullet choices?