Does Energy have the potential to affect terminal performance?

[Lou270]

I have read Nathan’s stuff and have his books. I won’t say I think everthing he writes is correct (compared to other experts, not me), but I don’t think anything I have written contradicts his stuff. I am trying to be caliber/bullet/numbers agnostic in what I posted to not derail a decent discussion with folks passions. Nathan likes to try and quantify this stuff into limits, thesholds, etc.. based on his observations which are up to interpretations and predjudices. We all have our own of those

Lou

 

[Chris_in_Idaho]

10E,
I'm interested to read the 4 pages of discussion that have already been added to this topic, but first I'm going to give you my response from only reading the OP and not yet being steered by anyone else's input.

First, the often repeated (or "parroted", if you are trying to cast a connotation of brainlessness on the person talking) quote is not that energy doesn't affect terminal performance, it's that energy is a useless metric for predicting terminal performance on an animal. As in, if you are trying to choose between two different cartridge combinations, the "foot pounds of energy" number printed on the box is not going to tell you which one will kill an animal quicker. I believe this is the point you would like to have discussion about?

You've gone to some good effort to define exactly what you're asking, but I think your "terminal performance" and "terminal ballistics" could use a little more specificity.

I’ve heard this loosely parroted a few time across the web. “Energy is a useless number in terminal performance”.

Terminal ballistics is a sub-field of ballistics concerned with the behavior and effects of a projectile when it hits and transfers its energy to a target.

This could refer to any target, for instance trying to determine if your projectile will have enough energy to knock over a steel ram at a metallic silhouette competition, or a bullseye shooter choosing wadcutters instead of round noses in his 38 special in order to get larger cleaner holes in the paper to break more lines.

But based on your posts in the 223 thread I'm going to assume that your question is applied to hunting, so we're shooting at game animals. Correct?

The next thing we need to determine is what kind of terminal performance you are looking for. Or, what effect do you want your bullet to have on the animal?

1. This is not an argument of whether or not the energy was necessary to kill an animal. If killing the animal was the only solution to the problem a sharpened stick would kill/answer the solution just as well as a nuclear bomb.

Well that's kind of weird, because I thought your question was about trying to kill an animal. And yes, both sharp sticks and nuclear bombs do work.

So, and I'm just making assumptions here considering you haven't actually specified any real question, perhaps you want to know if energy has an effect on how quickly an animal is incapacitated? Is that correct? And this would be measured either in time or distance traveled before going down for good. Still correct?

If that's the case, then I think we need to agree on what causes an animal to be incapacitated. My understanding (and I'm always open to learn more) is it happens when the brain is deprived of oxygen. The brain gets deprived of oxygen because the heart, lungs, blood vessels, or some combination of those three, are no longer functioning well enough to both oxygenate the blood and pump it through the brain. The way a bullet causes this system to stop functioning is via tissue disruption within the vital cavity. Still correct?

So let's agree to ignore other methods of knocking an animal down such as breaking its skeleton so it can't run away or shooting its brain or spine. Let's limit our discussion to shooting through the "boiler room", targeting the heart and/or lungs. Does this work for you?

Alright. Now we can look at how projectile kinetic energy does or does not effect this tissue disruption and ultimately the quickness of incapacitation that results.

Now, I agree that the only way to increase or decrease the energy of a projectile is to change its velocity and/or mass. I see you also don't want to add various bullet construction styles, diameters, and other variables into the question. I think those things are important, probably more than energy, but we'll try to limit them as much as possible for this discussion.

So let's start with a 30 cal example. Let's say you have a 308 with 130ttsx barnes factory ammo. Let's say you shoot an Elk at 100 yards so your impact velocity is 2848fps and your energy is 2342ftlb. 2848 is plenty of velocity to upset the the TTSX and the design favors penetration, so you're going to get a nice 1.5" or so wound channel that goes all the way through the vitals and probably exits the other side.
Maybe you had to track that Elk a little ways or for whatever reason you decide you want "more energy" so you buy a 300 Weatherby Mag and a box of Barnes factory 180ttsx vortx ammo. Next year you shoot an Elk at the same 100 yards, impacting with 2899fps and 3360ftlb. That's ONE THOUSAND MORE FOOT POUNDS OF ENERGY than last year. 2899 is still plenty of velocity to upset the ttsx, in fact it's almost exactly the same as 2848 was. You get an identical 1.5" wound channel all the way through the vitals and out the other side.

We've already established that animals are incapacitated by lack of oxygen to the brain, which is accomplished by failure of the heart/lungs/vessels, which is accomplished by tissue disruption. We got equal wound channels from both ttsx hits, so the 3360 foot pounds didn't do anything better than the 2342 foot pounds. So comparing kinetic energy figures did not tell us anything meaningful about incapacitating the elk.

Do you agree?

Hhmmm maybe TTSX is a bad example of a bullet and these cartridges both had too much power for an effective comparison.

So let's look at the 223 with 77TMK.

It has been very widely stated and proven with necropsy photos that the 77TMK is extremely effective at impact velocities of at least 1800fps. Well, we have a mass and a velocity, so we automatically have a byproduct called energy... looks like 554 foot pounds.

So if energy was a useful metric in predicting incapacitation, then any combination that impacts with at least 554 foot pounds should incapacitate equally as fast as the 77 TMK, correct?

Well, I really like my 375 H&H. So as long as it impacts with 554 foot pounds, it should incapacitate as quickly as the 77TMK at 1800fps, right?

No matter which 300 grain bullet I choose (partition, accubond, ttsx, hotcor, whatever), when it impacts at 912fps it's going to pencil through and give a tiny wound channel like a field point arrow. So, 554 ftlb was extremely effective with the 223 TMK, but not effective at all with the 375 bullets. So kinetic energy was not a useful metric to predict how quickly a bullet can incapacitate an animal, correct?

Ok maybe we need to keep diameters equal...

Let's compare the 223 77tmk at 1800fps impact to a 223 52gr Matchking at 2171fps impact. Both carrying the same 554 foot pounds of energy.

The TMK reliably upsets, is soft enough to fragment and has enough mass to continue its wound channel through both lungs. The 52smk is most likely either going to blow up in a shallow wound that does not penetrate far enough to disrupt the offside lung, or not upset correctly and pencil through.

So even though we had equal energy in equal caliber and both match bullets, we can't expect the 52smk to give the same wound channel as the 77TMK. So energy was not a useful metric in predicting quick incapacitation.

So does energy matter at all? Sorta, the bullets and bullet fragments need to move through the flesh in order to wound it. Kinetic energy is what keeps them moving... but that's about it.

Quickly incapacitating the animal depends on many things. Bullet construction, impact velocity and mass are all very important. Yes, two of those factors can be calculated into a byproduct called energy, but that number is not useful to predict how quickly a bullet can incapacitate a game animal.

Bottom line is you can't look at the energy numbers on two cartridge boxes and say "the one with the higher energy will kill quicker."

 

[10E]

10E,
I'm interested to read the 4 pages of discussion that have already been added to this topic, but first I'm going to give you my response from only reading the OP and not yet being steered by anyone else's input.

First, the often repeated (or "parroted", if you are trying to cast a connotation of brainlessness on the person talking) quote is not that energy doesn't affect terminal performance, it's that energy is a useless metric for predicting terminal performance on an animal. As in, if you are trying to choose between two different cartridge combinations, the "foot pounds of energy" number printed on the box is not going to tell you which one will kill an animal quicker. I believe this is the point you would like to have discussion about?

You've gone to some good effort to define exactly what you're asking, but I think your "terminal performance" and "terminal ballistics" could use a little more specificity.




This could refer to any target, for instance trying to determine if your projectile will have enough energy to knock over a steel ram at a metallic silhouette competition, or a bullseye shooter choosing wadcutters instead of round noses in his 38 special in order to get larger cleaner holes in the paper to break more lines.

But based on your posts in the 223 thread I'm going to assume that your question is applied to hunting, so we're shooting at game animals. Correct?

The next thing we need to determine is what kind of terminal performance you are looking for. Or, what effect do you want your bullet to have on the animal?



Well that's kind of weird, because I thought your question was about trying to kill an animal. And yes, both sharp sticks and nuclear bombs do work.

So, and I'm just making assumptions here considering you haven't actually specified any real question, perhaps you want to know if energy has an effect on how quickly an animal is incapacitated? Is that correct? And this would be measured either in time or distance traveled before going down for good. Still correct?

If that's the case, then I think we need to agree on what causes an animal to be incapacitated. My understanding (and I'm always open to learn more) is it happens when the brain is deprived of oxygen. The brain gets deprived of oxygen because the heart, lungs, blood vessels, or some combination of those three, are no longer functioning well enough to both oxygenate the blood and pump it through the brain. The way a bullet causes this system to stop functioning is via tissue disruption within the vital cavity. Still correct?

So let's agree to ignore other methods of knocking an animal down such as breaking its skeleton so it can't run away or shooting its brain or spine. Let's limit our discussion to shooting through the "boiler room", targeting the heart and/or lungs. Does this work for you?

Alright. Now we can look at how projectile kinetic energy does or does not effect this tissue disruption and ultimately the quickness of incapacitation that results.

Now, I agree that the only way to increase or decrease the energy of a projectile is to change its velocity and/or mass. I see you also don't want to add various bullet construction styles, diameters, and other variables into the question. I think those things are important, probably more than energy, but we'll try to limit them as much as possible for this discussion.

So let's start with a 30 cal example. Let's say you have a 308 with 130ttsx barnes factory ammo. Let's say you shoot an Elk at 100 yards so your impact velocity is 2848fps and your energy is 2342ftlb. 2848 is plenty of velocity to upset the the TTSX and the design favors penetration, so you're going to get a nice 1.5" or so wound channel that goes all the way through the vitals and probably exits the other side.
Maybe you had to track that Elk a little ways or for whatever reason you decide you want "more energy" so you buy a 300 Weatherby Mag and a box of Barnes factory 180ttsx vortx ammo. Next year you shoot an Elk at the same 100 yards, impacting with 2899fps and 3360ftlb. That's ONE THOUSAND MORE FOOT POUNDS OF ENERGY than last year. 2899 is still plenty of velocity to upset the ttsx, in fact it's almost exactly the same as 2848 was. You get an identical 1.5" wound channel all the way through the vitals and out the other side.

We've already established that animals are incapacitated by lack of oxygen to the brain, which is accomplished by failure of the heart/lungs/vessels, which is accomplished by tissue disruption. We got equal wound channels from both ttsx hits, so the 3360 foot pounds didn't do anything better than the 2342 foot pounds. So comparing kinetic energy figures did not tell us anything meaningful about incapacitating the elk.

Do you agree?

Hhmmm maybe TTSX is a bad example of a bullet and these cartridges both had too much power for an effective comparison.

So let's look at the 223 with 77TMK.

It has been very widely stated and proven with necropsy photos that the 77TMK is extremely effective at impact velocities of at least 1800fps. Well, we have a mass and a velocity, so we automatically have a byproduct called energy... looks like 554 foot pounds.

So if energy was a useful metric in predicting incapacitation, then any combination that impacts with at least 554 foot pounds should incapacitate equally as fast as the 77 TMK, correct?

Well, I really like my 375 H&H. So as long as it impacts with 554 foot pounds, it should incapacitate as quickly as the 77TMK at 1800fps, right?

No matter which 300 grain bullet I choose (partition, accubond, ttsx, hotcor, whatever), when it impacts at 912fps it's going to pencil through and give a tiny wound channel like a field point arrow. So, 554 ftlb was extremely effective with the 223 TMK, but not effective at all with the 375 bullets. So kinetic energy was not a useful metric to predict how quickly a bullet can incapacitate an animal, correct?

Ok maybe we need to keep diameters equal...

Let's compare the 223 77tmk at 1800fps impact to a 223 52gr Matchking at 2171fps impact. Both carrying the same 554 foot pounds of energy.

The TMK reliably upsets, is soft enough to fragment and has enough mass to continue its wound channel through both lungs. The 52smk is most likely either going to blow up in a shallow wound that does not penetrate far enough to disrupt the offside lung, or not upset correctly and pencil through.

So even though we had equal energy in equal caliber and both match bullets, we can't expect the 52smk to give the same wound channel as the 77TMK. So energy was not a useful metric in predicting quick incapacitation.

So does energy matter at all? Sorta, the bullets and bullet fragments need to move through the flesh in order to wound it. Kinetic energy is what keeps them moving... but that's about it.

Quickly incapacitating the animal depends on many things. Bullet construction, impact velocity and mass are all very important. Yes, two of those factors can be calculated into a byproduct called energy, but that number is not useful to predict how quickly a bullet can incapacitate a game animal.

Bottom line is you can't look at the energy numbers on two cartridge boxes and say "the one with the higher energy will kill quicker."

I do not disagree with anything you have said.

I have a follow up question. (I honestly don’t have any experience with the Barnes bullet on game) In your Barnes example where did the excess energy go? And how do we know that the excess energy did not create a larger wound diameter (by means of tearing) from the pedals cutting the material that is going to be stretched more from the increased in temporary cavity size? This is my understanding of the Barnes bullet construction so please correct me if I am wrong.

If I understand you correctly you and can take the example farther if we can find a lighter weight bullet with a a softer construction and less impact velocity than the 77 gr TMK. We should be able to do the same thing as the 77 gr TMK in a 223. So keeping it to .224 bullets could we push a 40 gr v-max at less velocity/ whatever velocity and get the same or nearly the same results. Do I understand that correctly?

 

[Formidilosus]

I do not disagree with anything you have said.

I have a follow up question. (I honestly don’t have any experience with the Barnes bullet on game) In your Barnes example where did the excess energy go? And how do we know that the excess energy did not create a larger wound diameter (by means of tearing) from the pedals cutting the material that is going to be stretched more from the increased in temporary cavity size? This is my understanding of the Barnes bullet construction so please correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong. The tissue is stretched radially outward from the passage of the bullet. Very little tissue is in contact with the bullet (relatively) and what is only about the diameter or a little larger than the bullet.

You are bound and determined to hold onto “energy”. It is a a useless metric for determing or predicting wound size. Thats it. No amount of I like, I think, I feel will change that.
Instead going on and on, actually read the threads you claim to have, then google “Dr Martin Fackler terminal ballistics”, DR Gary Robert’s terminal ballistics”, “international wound ballistics association” and read the medical literature.

If I understand you correctly you and can take the example farther if we can find a lighter weight bullet with a a softer construction and less impact velocity than the 77 gr TMK. We should be able to do the same thing as the 77 gr TMK in a 223. So keeping it to .224 bullets could we push a 40 gr v-max at less velocity/ whatever velocity and get the same or nearly the same results. Do I understand that correctly?

No. If both fragment equally, the 77gr has more fragments, which in turn creates a larger wound. Now, you’ll say that a 200gr bullet that fragments the same can create a a larger wound- yes. But “ft-lbs or energy” doesn’t determine that. Bullet construction and impact velocity does.

 

[10E]

I guess that in a way makes a point. In your last example Bullet mass would have to be included.

Bullet construction, bullet velocity and bullet mass in the case of more fragments/ wound potential.

One variable alone is not the entire story, two alone is not the entire story, three alone is not the entire story…. This is part of what makes the issue so complex. Any one variable if taken to an extreme has the potential to screw up any attempt at drawing an accurate conclusion. I believe that is what the science actually shows as well. You could say Energy alone is Not always accurate to determine wounding or terminal performance and I would absolutely agree with you 100%. But to say that it cannot effect those outcomes is going a little to far in my opinion.

Whether that excess in the wounding potentials listed above is necessary is completely subjective and opinion based. I don’t want to argue that.

For general and practical use I agree 100% that a given bullet construction (assuming we have a suitable amount of mass) and impact velocity are the two most reliable indicators of what we can expect on the target and the simplest information to relay to another hunter. I use that myself.

 

[Formidilosus]

For general and practical use I agree 100% that a given bullet construction (assuming we have a suitable amount of mass) and impact velocity are the two most reliable indicators of what we can expect on the target and the simplest information to relay to another hunter. I use that myself.

No. Again, you have missed it. You are trying to make it a very complex thing, because otherwise your beliefs are wrong.

The ONLY reliable predictor of what I bullet will do in tissue is to test it repeatedly in tissue, or properly calibrated organic 10% ballistic gelatin and measure the wound. You do this at varying impact velocities and find out what the upper limit impact velocities for sufficient penetration, and the lower limit impact velocity is for bullet upset. Then you have a 3d model of expected wound channel from muzzle to as far as terminally capable.

 

[Formidilosus]

@10E , It may seem like I am being rude, that is not my intention. I am trying to be as clear and blunt as possible.

 

[Bluefish]

I would say this about energy, it only matters until you have enough. Not enough and your bullet won’t do it’s job. How much is enough depends on a lot of things, bullet construction, projectile size, and animal. even in my limited time hunting, 5 white tails, more energy doesn’t necessarily mean they run less.

 

[Squincher]

I guess that in a way makes a point. In your last example Bullet mass would have to be included.

Bullet construction, bullet velocity and bullet mass in the case of more fragments/ wound potential.

One variable alone is not the entire story, two alone is not the entire story, three alone is not the entire story…. This is part of what makes the issue so complex. Any one variable if taken to an extreme has the potential to screw up any attempt at drawing an accurate conclusion. I believe that is what the science actually shows as well. You could say Energy alone is Not always accurate to determine wounding or terminal performance and I would absolutely agree with you 100%. But to say that it cannot effect those outcomes is going a little to far in my opinion.

Whether that excess in the wounding potentials listed above is necessary is completely subjective and opinion based. I don’t want to argue that.

For general and practical use I agree 100% that a given bullet construction (assuming we have a suitable amount of mass) and impact velocity are the two most reliable indicators of what we can expect on the target and the simplest information to relay to another hunter. I use that myself.

Look at the energy equation and see how much more emphasis is placed on velocity than mass. That should remove any doubt that velocity is what matters.

 

[10E]

This is where it gets kinda tricky though right. Living tissue is a variable medium. Ballistics gel is a controlled medium that we can sometimes count on giving an idea of a permanent wound track (when it comes close to matching the tissue the bullet strikes/ interacts with) the field pics show the range of wounding and some wounds are noticeably larger than what a ballistics gel test alone would suggest.

We are not yet to a point (at least I don’t think) where anyone /anything can process all this information. And for now field tests on living animals and ballistics gel are the commonly accepted/agreed on test mediums.

Maybe one day artificial intelligence could compile and process all the data and variables and give us a 3 dimiensional anatomically correct species specific view, that we can plug in a given projectile/ velocity/shot angle and location etc. and see a three dimensional view of the effect to the target or at least a very close approximation . (A guy can hope for the future I guess )

This is why I don’t know if all the science is settled. I have read some of what Fackler has written and he poked holes in previous studies that did not take all variables and their potential effects into account.

I don’t take it as rude and I have no intentions to be rude to you. I would add that when this conversation is over if it were face to face I would shake your hand. Your scientific method/ real world evidence approach to all things you have posted on this forum is very refreshing!

 

[Formidilosus]

This is where it gets kinda tricky though right. Living tissue is a variable medium. Ballistics gel is a controlled medium that we can sometimes count on giving an idea of a permanent wound track

It’s more than sometimes.

(when it comes close to matching the tissue the bullet strikes/ interacts with) the field pics show the range of wounding and some wounds are noticeably larger than what a ballistics gel test alone would suggest.

No it’s not. You must know what your are looking at with ballistics gel a dye, but wounds in animals are extremely close to what gel shows. Bones are not nearly the effect with rifle cartridges that people believe, however that barrier can be simulated adequately as well.

We are not yet to a point (at least I don’t think) where anyone /anything can process all this information.

I’m not sure I would say that. I’m legit terminal ballistics community, what bullets do in tissue is extremely predictive with proper testing.

Maybe one day artificial intelligence could compile and process all the data and variables and give us a 3 dimiensional anatomically correct species specific view, that we can plug in a given projectile/ velocity/shot angle and location etc. and see a three dimensional view of the effect to the target or at least a very close approximation . (A guy can hope for the future I guess )

It doesn’t take AI to do it, and your 3d rendering is already being done, and has been done for several decades. It isn’t commonly in the hunting community, but it’s already there.

This is why I don’t know if all the science is settled. I have read some of what Fackler has written and he poked holes in previous studies that did not take all variables and their potential effects into account.

Nothing is ever “settled”, however what bullets do in tissue isn’t an unknown anymore. I can test a brand new bullet in properly calibrated 10% organic gel- bare heavy clothing, and auto glass at 2,800fps impact and at 1,800fps impact (or whenever lower limit is), and tell you with a high confidence what the wounds will look like in big game.


Again, this whole thing seems like you don’t want this to be easy. Like you don’t want the answer to be as simple as it is. Why?

I don’t take it as rude and I have no intentions to be rude to you. I would add that when this conversation is over if it were face to face I would shake your hand.

I’m sure it would sir.

 

[Wrench]

Sectional density.

 

[10E]

It’s more than sometimes.




No it’s not. You must know what your are looking at with ballistics gel a dye, but wounds in animals are extremely close to what gel shows. Bones are not nearly the effect with rifle cartridges that people believe, however that barrier can be simulated adequately as well.





I’m not sure I would say that. I’m legit terminal ballistics community, what bullets do in tissue is extremely predictive with proper testing.



It doesn’t take AI to do it, and your 3d rendering is already being done, and has been done for several decades. It isn’t commonly in the hunting community, but it’s already there.



Nothing is ever “settled”, however what bullets do in tissue isn’t an unknown anymore. I can test a brand new bullet in properly calibrated 10% organic gel- bare heavy clothing, and auto glass at 2,800fps impact and at 1,800fps impact (or whenever lower limit is), and tell you with a high confidence what the wounds will look like in big game.


Again, this whole thing seems like you don’t want this to be easy. Like you don’t want the answer to be as simple as it is. Why?





I’m sure it would sir.

That sounds like an awesome job!

I too feel like you are making the simple answer complicated, And could ask you the same question.

This simple answer to the whole thread is yes it has the potential, HOWEVER it depends on a lot of other variables.

 

[Bluefish]

Look at the energy equation and see how much more emphasis is placed on velocity than mass. That should remove any doubt that velocity is what matters.

I would even argue that velocity is not all that critical for bullet performance, provided it’s in the range the bullet needs to work. Example, I used a subsonic 45-70 this year, 500g at 1050. Opens down to 800, so it can open out to 700 ish yards. Yes, drop will be a huge issue, but if you put the bullet on target I am sure it will work well all the way out to 700 yards. Btw it gave the the best terminal performance so far of the four cartridges I have used to take deer.

I am not saying velocity isn’t something that needs to be ignored, but much like energy, it’s not a single metric that defines how well a bullet performs terminally. Again the velocity has to match the window for proper bullet function. Too fast and they explode, too slow and they don’t upset. Velocity is most important for time of flight which is related to drop and wind deflection. Imho this is why we see fast speeds and bullets designed to work at those speeds.

 

[10E]

It’s been a good discussion and I have honestly learned a lot from all the input guys. Thank you! I like exploring a topic from all angles when possible and I will admit some of my assumptions were wrong.

I will part with a quote from Martin L Fackler from institute report 239. Titled “what’s wrong with the wound ballistics literature and why”

Under section 4

4. Presumption of "Kinetic Energy Deposit" to Be a Mechanism of Wounding:​

Last sentence of the first paragraph.

“ The synergy between projectile fragmentation and cavitation can greatly increase the damage done by a given amount of kinetic energy.”

It ties in beautifully to what has been discussed and the real world test conducted as well as the many field reports on the 223 77gr TMK thread.

I personally find this information useful. I hope it was useful for other people as well. If the site moderators do not find this thread interesting or informative please take it down. It will not hurt my feelings at all.

Thanks again to everyone!

 

[Shraggs]

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.

no body is suggesting that energy however measured or stated is not a predictor of work potential. Work potential is in no way a measure of tissue damage. Guns were specifically designed to kill living things. To ignore or diminish real animal evidence and as you stated in post 24 a simpler number per se as the decision criteria is odd.

If you fire a round that has 1500 ft lbs at x distance:

1 into the air no work is done the energy or work potential is lost as heat.

2 a fmj will do minimal work as it pencils thru doing minimal tissue damage and likely see the smoke.

3 a frangible bullet will do significant work into a fraction of its original mass and significant tissue damage as a result.

4 bonded tough type bullets will do significant work too deforming the tough bullet with little loss in mass and moderate tissue damage as a result. Key - need more tissue damage, jump into a bigger caliber with same bullet… or number 3

The KE is doing the work to the projectile not the target. Bullet choice matters first then the appropriate powder and corresponding KE and fps.

I want to say in the late 70s to early 80s that gun broachers had ballistics for every caliber and then every single gun review had a lengthy discussion about KE. That’s when I learned that those hundreds of deer I saw killed with a 30-30/32/35 lever past 150 yards should have never been used with 700 ish ft lbs if KE… I new something was off but it was written and must be true. As humans I think it’s so much easier to want that simple answer of KE

Yet you and everyone here has acknowledged or witnessed that remarkable killing and tissue damage occurs below these contrived thresholds of performance. Maybe someone thought they could get more sales buy reducing millions of 30-30 in use and jump into this new 80 grain fire breathing caliber to be more effective.

Instead of trying to justify maybe treat this notion as a hypothesis and test it…

Wait, I already sited deer being killed before the marketing of 1000 ft lbs KE threshold and I can scientifically dismiss the entire marketing driven BS.

 

[10E]

no body is suggesting that energy however measured or stated is not a predictor of work potential. Work potential is in no way a measure of tissue damage. Guns were specifically designed to kill living things. To ignore or diminish real animal evidence and as you stated in post 24 a simpler number per se as the decision criteria is odd.

If you fire a round that has 1500 ft lbs at x distance:

1 into the air no work is done the energy or work potential is lost as heat.

2 a fmj will do minimal work as it pencils thru doing minimal tissue damage and likely see the smoke.

3 a frangible bullet will do significant work into a fraction of its original mass and significant tissue damage as a result.

4 bonded tough type bullets will do significant work too deforming the tough bullet with little loss in mass and moderate tissue damage as a result. Key - need more tissue damage, jump into a bigger caliber with same bullet… or number 3

The KE is doing the work to the projectile not the target. Bullet choice matters first then the appropriate powder and corresponding KE and fps.

I want to say in the late 70s to early 80s that gun broachers had ballistics for every caliber and then every single gun review had a lengthy discussion about KE. That’s when I learned that those hundreds of deer I saw killed with a 30-30/32/35 lever past 150 yards should have never been used with 700 ish ft lbs if KE… I new something was off but it was written and must be true. As humans I think it’s so much easier to want that simple answer of KE

Yet you and everyone here has acknowledged or witnessed that remarkable killing and tissue damage occurs below these contrived thresholds of performance. Maybe someone thought they could get more sales buy reducing millions of 30-30 in use and jump into this new 80 grain fire breathing caliber to be more effective.

Instead of trying to justify maybe treat this notion as a hypothesis and test it…

Wait, I already sited deer being killed before the marketing of 1000 ft lbs KE threshold and I can scientifically dismiss the entire marketing driven BS.

Yes. I agree that it is fairly useless. I admit that some of my assumptions were wrong.

The most accurate predictor of terminal performance is bullet construction, impact velocity, and target medium. Anything short of these pieces of information will be incomplete.

I also have personally killed and watched a family member kill elk with sub 700 foot pound impact energies and both died in less than 10 seconds. Shot placement was right on the money in both of those cases.

This is where part of my incorrect assumptions came from:

I have used match bullets on all but one game animal since 2007 in mostly standard bolt face cartridges. I have been using magnums on game for the past 5 years and I have witnessed some scaling to the wound size by increasing both the mass of the projectile and the impact velocity (this is specifically talking about the eld-m line) In my observations the bullet was doing the same thing but on a larger scale. In that case delivering the increase in energy in the form of cavitation and fragmentation increased the size of the wound. (I may have just been lucky enough to land on the right combination of bullet construction and velocity though)

The biggest issue with my assumption is that energy can also be matched by increasing the mass of the bullet and slowing the velocity. This has the potential to negatively affect the scale of the wound.

 

[SloppyJ]

Not sure why this thrrad keeps circling around and around.

If I told you that I have two guns with two different loads and at 100yds one produces 2,000ftlb and one creates 1,000ftlb and you had to pick one, you wouldn't have anything to go on.

If I told you one hit at 2,000fps and one hit at 1,000fps, then you'd have something to go off of if you know anything about typical bullet performance.

Does the energy go somewhere? Yes, because we know the law of conservation of energy. However it's a simple factor of mass and velocity.

Since there are other variables at play such as bullet construction which leads to disruption, another factor of velocity, it sure seems likely that energy is just a third party statistic here.

We have a goal which is an effective wound channel. It all revolves around velocity which points to energy as a "useless" statistic in this calculation.

Not sure if the question has been asked but I'm curious as to why energy was ever promoted as hard as it is. I understand that more energy sounds better on paper but it's on every box of ammo. Is there a story behind that?

All I know is that I dropped 3 deer straight down today back to back with 160gr Partitions out of my 280ai at around 2675fps at the point of impact. Whatever that energy works out to be is just fine with me.

 

[Bluefish]

Not sure why this thrrad keeps circling around and around.

If I told you that I have two guns with two different loads and at 100yds one produces 2,000ftlb and one creates 1,000ftlb and you had to pick one, you wouldn't have anything to go on.

If I told you one hit at 2,000fps and one hit at 1,000fps, then you'd have something to go off of if you know anything about typical bullet performance.

Does the energy go somewhere? Yes, because we know the law of conservation of energy. However it's a simple factor of mass and velocity.

Since there are other variables at play such as bullet construction which leads to disruption, another factor of velocity, it sure seems likely that energy is just a third party statistic here.

I would argue even energy and velocity might not be enough to answer the question. You really need to know what bullet and what are it’s optimal conditions. I used a load this year that was 1000fps and 1000ftlbs and I would use it on elk any day. I am sure that a 2000 fps load might not work well depending on the bullet, say a TSX.

 

[Mike Islander]

Ok so if I’m understanding the you guys correctly. The simple answer to the title of this thread is…


NO! (A very emphatic one at that ) Energy has no potential to affect terminal performance. It is Useless.

Ok it’s settled.

You've been an easy read from the start. Sort of like a dumb AI troll. Easy to predict you would conclude that.