You are incorrect, 1800 fps is a velocity at which 99% of highly fragmenting bullets will break apart and create lethal would channel. It is not on the margin if 99% will open. It’s the number given by many manufacturers and proven by experience.
It’s not insane to say a .223 is as lethal as a 7mm bullet, because the size of the wound channel is effectively the same when it comes to damage necessary to be lethal. The wound channels have been shown to be nearly as large in circumference and penetration.
At about equal impact speeds, I could not really tell any meaningful difference between a 133 .257 and 180 7mm Berger. At 100 yards with both I had exit holes larger than a tennis ball. Does it matter that the 7mm blew a larger sized hole? Both actually pulled lung tissue out of the exit.
The same thing holds true for internal damage of .223 vs .308. The difference in damage is not directly proportional to the bullet diameter. It is more on a logarithmic or exponential scale.
Doubling the weight of a highly fragmenting bullet doesn’t double the diameter of damage or double the penetration. It might double the total damage, but the wound channel isn’t that much larger. It only adds and inch or two to the diameter and a couple inches to the penetration.
The difference with higher weight retention bullets (after a much smaller fragmentation wound channel) is much more related to the size of the bullet because of the way they cause damage. Like archery, the damage is more directly related to the cutting diameter of the blades.
And, the .223 fragmenting bullet objectively damages more total tissue than a larger mono metal with a narrow wound channel.
Now, higher velocity changes dynamics of all bullets, so monos can create devestating wounds at higher velocity bands.
Tell me more about how lead disperses into meat outside of the visible wound channel and bloodshot. I don’t believe it can physically travel through tissue much beyond the bloodshot meat, because the particles are so small it takes little meat to stop it.
Perhaps there is something I don’t know or an error. In my logic.
That said, the minimal amount of lead that travels, doesn’t appear to be outside of the wound channel enough to bother me. Sure, I can’t predict everything, but I have not seen anything travel in a weird trajectory. Once a bullet starts to break apart, it spreads out in a vector consistent with the trajectory and substance it is traveling through. Physics seems to limit the trajectory.
In lung/rib shots how unpredictable do you think lead will spread?
I said nothing about ethics or advisability of shooting to 800, except to point out that your 400 yard number has nothing to do with bullet performance as identified above.
I understand and agree that distance adds variables. That doesn’t create worse probabilities for all “long range” shots. I agree that an animal with reasonable potential to take a step makes a less ethical shot. I very likely won’t take that shot.
Question: If you knew with high confidence that you could put a bullet into a 4” spot on a bedded buck who is relaxed and chewing his cud, so you know he isn’t moving, would you factor time of flight to determine if the shot is ethical?
Hunting ethics are necessarily dependent on all the variables. I can create hundreds of scenarios where even a 50 yard shot is unethical, but that speaks nothing of 50 yard shots.
It’s Ok for you to draw a line where you feel comfortable, or even ethical. But, many will disagree, including me. You can even call me unethical, and I am OK with it.
As for the line at which lead contamination begins, I want to understand how far you think it travels beyond blood shot meat. And, why. I honestly don’t know.
