Max Effective Range for Elk: 7-08, 6.5C, and 308

[Article 4]

Not sure if comparing slab sided ungulates to armored personnel carriers or Tanks is really apples to apples

True. Hypothetically smashing someone in the chest with a sledgehammer would not penetrate or make a hole. Would break some ribs but that wouldn’t kill in itself. The head Would not expand. What would kill the person? Massive trauma and kinetic energy and the shock wave that accompanies it.

 

[Formidilosus]

True. Hypothetically smashing someone in the chest with a sledgehammer would not penetrate or make a hole. Would break some ribs but that wouldn’t kill in itself. The head Would not expand. What would kill the person? Massive trauma and kinetic energy and the shock wave that accompanies it.

What size wound does 1,000ft-lbs of energy create? How deep will it penetrate? What will the shape be?

 

[T28w]

True. Hypothetically smashing someone in the chest with a sledgehammer would not penetrate or make a hole. Would break some ribs but that wouldn’t kill in itself. The head Would not expand. What would kill the person? Massive trauma and kinetic energy and the shock wave that accompanies it.

What size wound does 1,000ft-lbs of energy create? How deep will it penetrate? What will the shape be?

I guess it depends how hard of a swing it takes to create 1,000 ft lbs with a sledgehammer

sorry lol.

 

[Maverick1]

All three are essentially the same within most hunters maximum effective range. And if you are asking this question, all three are likely beyond your effective range. Stop with the analysis paralysis and pick one.

 

[Jason Snyder]

I think it’s noteworthy bullet manufacturers will recommend a minimum terminal impact velocity for proper expansion, but not a minimum terminal impact energy value.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Article 4

Was it 3,400 ft-lbs of energy, or 340 ft-lbs of energy that created this wound in this elk?




What about this one?




What about this one- 3,400ft-lbs or 340ft-lbs?




2,600 ft-lbs, or 400ft-lbs?




2,600ft-lbs or 400ft-lbs?




Nearly 4,000ft-lbs? Or under 400?





The same- almost 4,000ft-lbs or under 400?

 

[Article 4]

It not opinion. It’s the whole of legitimate, medical terminal ballistics research.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21037128_Gunshot_wounds_I_Bullets_ballistics_and_mechanisms_of_injury

Here’s a few of the relevant papers that you can google.



Lindsey D: The idolatry of velocity, or lies, damn lies, and ballistics.

Swan KG, Swan RC, Levine MG, Rocko JM: The US M-16 rifle versus the Russian AK-47 rifle

Ordog GJ, Wassererger J, Balasubramanium S: Am Emer Med

GM, Sim FH: Missile wounds of the extremities: A current concepts review. Orthopedics


Barach E, Tomlanovich M, Nowak R: Ballistics: A pathophysiologic examination of the wounding mechanisms of firearms, Part I. J Trauma Part II. J Trauma

Newman D, Yardley M: New generation small arms ammunition


Lindsey D: The idolatry of velocity, or lies, damn lies, and ballistics. J Trauma


Swan KG: Misile injuries: Wound ballistics and principles of management. Milit Med

Fackler ML, Surinchak JS, Malinowski JA, Bowen RE: Bullet fragmentation: A major cause of tissue disruption. J Trauma

Fackler ML, Surinchak JS, Malinowski JA, Bowen RE: Wounding potential of the Russian AK-74 assault rifle. J Trauma 1984:24:263-256.
Lindsey D: The idolatry of velocity, or lies, damn lies, and ballistics. J Trauma


Fackler ML, Maiinowski JA: The wound profile: A visual method for quantifying gunshot wound components. J Trauma

Fackler ML, Bellamy RF, Malinowski JA: Wounding mechanism of projectiles striking at over 1.5 km/sec. J Trauma

Fackler ML: Ballistic injury. Am Emerg Med

Fackler ML: Wound ballistics, in Trunkey DD, Lewis FR (eds.): Current Therapy of Trauma - 2, Toronto, BC Decker Inc

Fackler ML: Physics of penetrating trauma, in McSwain NE Jr, Kerstein MD (eds.): Evaluation and Management of Trauma, Norwalk, Conn, Appleton, Century, Crofts Inc.,



Kocher T: Ueber die Sprengwirkung der Modernen Kleingewehr-geschosse. Correspondenz-Blatt fuer Schweitzer Aerzte


Kocher T: Neue Beitraege zur Kenntnis der Wirkungsweise der Modernen Klein-gewehr-geschosse. Correspondenz-Blatt fuer Schweitzer Aerzte


Kocher T: Ueber Schusswunden. Experimentalle Untersuchunaen ueber die Wirkungsweise der Modernen Klein-ewehr-eschosse. Leipzig, Verlag von FCW Vogel

Kocher T: Die Veresserung der Geschosse von Standpunkte der Humanitaet. 11th International Medical Congress, Rome. 29 March-5 April, 1894;

Kocher T: Zur Lehre von den Schusswunden durch Kleinkaliber-geschosse. Cassel, Th.G. Fisher & Co

Bruchey WJ Jr: mmunition for law enforcement: Part I, Methodology for evaluating relative stopping power and results. Ballistics Research Laboratory Technical Report TR-02199, Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Bruchey WJ Jr, Frank DE: Police Handgun Ammunition Incapacitation effects, National Institute of Justice Rep 100-83. Washington, DC, US Govt Printing Office, 1984, Vol I: Evaluation.

Ragsdale BD: Gunshot wounds: A historical perspective. Milit Med

Harvey EN, Korr IM, Oster G, McMillen JH: Secondary damage in wounding due to pressure changes accompanying the passage of high velocity missiles. Surgery

Kahnosi RJ, Lingemen JE, Coury TA, Steele RA, Mosbaugh PG: Combined percutaneous and extracorporeal shoc wave lithotripsy for staghorn calculi: An alternative to anatrophic nephrolithotomy.

Kuwahara M, Kambe K, Kurosu S, Orikasa S, Takayama K: Extracorporeal stone disintegration using chemical shock waves. J

Gill W, Long WB III: Shock Trauma Manual. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1978

Rybec B: Missile wounding and hemodynamic effects of energy absorption. Acta Chir Scand

Owen-Smith MS: High Velocity Missile Wounds. London, Edward Arnold

Swan KG, Swan RC: Gunshot Wounds: Pathophysiology and Management. Littleton, Mass, PSG Publishing Co.

Owen T, Piecuch T, Domaniecki J, Badowski A: Mechanisms of development of shot wounds caused by missiles of different initial velocity

Litwin MS: Trauma: Management of the acutely injured patient, in Sabiston C Jr (ed): Davis- Christoher Textbook of Surgery, ed 12. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co

Whelan TJ Jr: Missile-caused wounds, in Emergency War Surgery--NATO Handbook, 1st US Revision. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office

Marcus MA, Blair WF, Shuck JM, Omer GE: Low-velocity gunshot wounds to extremities.

Morgan MM, Spencer AD, Hershey FB: Debridement of civilian gunshot wounds of soft tissue.

Harvey EN: Studies on wound ballistics, in Andrus CE, Bronk DW, Corden GA Jr, et al (eds): Advances in Military Medicine. Boston, Little, Brown

Dziemian AJ, Mendelson JA, Lindsey D: Comparison of the wounding characteristics of some commonly encountered bullets.

Mendelson JA, Glover JL: Sphere and shell fragment wounds of soft tissues: Experimental study.

Hopkinson DAW, Watts JC: Studies in experimental missile injuries of skeletal muscle.

Fackler ML, Breteau JPL, Courbil LJ, Taxit R, Glas J, Fievet JP: Open wound drainage versus wound excision on the modern battlefield. Letterman Army Institute of Research, Presidio of San Francisco, CA (in press)

Breadue JPL, Fackler ML, Taxit R, Courbil LJ: Trajet lesionnel ou nWound Profile" et vasomotricite cutanee. in Travaux Scientifiaues des Chercheurs du S S A durant l'Annee 1986. Direction Centrale de Service de Sante des Armees, Paris, Republique Francaise Ministre de la Defense, 1987.

Dimond FC Jr, Rich NM: M-16 rifle wounds in Vietnam.

Dudley HAF, Rnight RJ, McNeur JC, Rosengarten DS: Civilian battle casualties in South Vietnam.

LaGarde LA: Characteristic lesions caused by projectiles, in Gunshot Injuries. 2nd revised edition. New York, William Wood and Co

Borden WC: Military surgery. Proc Milit Surg

Amato JJ, Rich NM, Billy LJ, Gruber RP, Lawson NS: High-velocity arterial injury: A study of the mechanism of injury.

Belkin M: Wound ballistics. Prog Sur

Rich NM, Spencer F: Experimental arterial trauma, in Vascular Trauma. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co

Herget CM: Wound ballistics, in Bowers WB: Surgery of Trauma. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott Co

Pavletic MM: Gunshot wounds in veterinary medicine: Projectile ballistics -- Part II. Compendium on Continuing Education for the Practicing Veterinarian

Scott R: Proiectile Trauma an Enquiry into Bullet Wounds. Trauma Unit, Chem Defence Establishment, Porton Down, England

Bellamy RF: Department o Military Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Medical School, Bethesda, Md, personal communication

Hopkinson DAW, Marshall TK: Firearm injuries. Br

French RW, Callender GR: Ballistic characteristics of wounding agents, in Beyer JC (ed): Wound Ballistics. Washington, DC, Office of the Surgeon General, Dept of the Army

Amato JJ, Rich NM: Temporary cavity effects in blood vessel injury by high velocity missiles.

Wang ZG, Feng JX, Liu YQ: Pathomorphological observations of gunshot wounds.

Kokinakis W, Neades D, Piddington M, Roecker E: A gelatin energy methodology for estimating vulnerability of personnel to military rifle systems.

Janzon B, Seeman T: Muscle devitalization in high energy missile wounds, and its dependence on energy transfer.

Berlin R, Janzon B, Rybec B, Sandegard J, Seeman T: Local effects of assault rifle bullets in live tissues.

Wang ZG, Qian CW, Zhan DC, Shi TZ, Tang CG: Pathological changes of gunshot wounds at various intervals after wounding.

Ziervogel JF: A study of muscle damage caused by the 7.62 NATO rifle.

Ferguson LK, Brown RB, Nicholson JT, Stedman HE: Observations on the treatment of battle wounds aboard a hospital ship.

Ireland MW, Callender GR, Coupal JF: The Medical Department of the US Army in World War I. Washington, DC


Hardaway RM III: Vietnam wound analysis.

Janzon G: High energy missile trauma. Department of Surgery II, University of Goteborg


Fackler ML: Tissue simulants: Use and misuse.

Dugas R, D'Ambrosia R: Civilian gunshot wounds.



Albreht MA: Data presented at the 5th International Wound Ballistics Symposium, Goteborg, Sweden

Stolinski DC: Stopping power--a physician's report, in Bell

@Article 4

Was it 3,400 ft-lbs of energy, or 340 ft-lbs of energy that created this wound in this elk?
View attachment 680449



What about this one?
View attachment 680451



What about this one- 3,400ft-lbs or 340ft-lbs?
View attachment 680455



2,600 ft-lbs, or 400ft-lbs?
View attachment 680456



2,600ft-lbs or 400ft-lbs?
View attachment 680457



Nearly 4,000ft-lbs? Or under 400?
View attachment 680458

View attachment 680459


The same- almost 4,000ft-lbs or under 400?
View attachment 680460


View attachment 680461

Exactly. No matter what pounds of energy we claim there are massive wound channels around each hole. Yes the hole is there but the pressure and shock created by the bullet slamming into the animal was part of the kill.

Oh. Read the first couple of citations in your prev post. Those are studies powered to look at bullet holes as killing parameters. Even with that, quite a few did talk about the accompanying wound channels and cavities formed around the bullet channels. They didn’t say energy didn’t matter. What caused those channels and cavities? Kinetic energy which caused massive tissue trauma around the bullet channel.

Seems like I touched a nerve here with you a bit. I’ll bow out. Have some dinner, and a Blantons or maybe a Zaya. If you are in N Idaho ever, HMU. Let’s have one together.

Cheers all!!!

 

[35WhelenAI]

When an incessant argument of energy continually repeats itself, the energy required to explain over again is enough to appear to cause a touched nerve. But energy is not a determinant of touched nerves, just like it's not a measure of killing effectiveness.

 

[Formidilosus]

When an incessant argument of energy continually repeats itself, the energy required to explain over again is enough to appear to cause a touched nerve. But energy is not a determinant of touched nerves, just like it's not a measure of killing effectiveness.

Haha. Well done sir, well done

 

[Jimss]

Go 30 cal and don't worry about it the rest of your life!

 

[Formidilosus]

Exactly. No matter what pounds of energy we claim there are massive wound channels around each hole. Yes the hole is there but the pressure and shock created by the bullet slamming into the animal was part of the kill.

What are you talking about? You literally stated that this-

I look at max effective range as the amount of energy - which can equate to amount of penetration - which should exceed 1000lbs.

Why I use the constant of 1000lbs of energy threshold in an elk. No matter what else is going on with variable like stated above transferring that amount of energy in the vitals helps to ensure a dead elk

Which are objectively, and demonstrably false.

Oh. Read the first couple of citations in your prev post. Those are studies powered to look at bullet holes as killing parameters. Even with that, quite a few did talk about the accompanying wound channels and cavities formed around the bullet channels. They didn’t say energy didn’t matter. What caused those channels and cavities? Kinetic energy which caused massive tissue trauma around the bullet channel.

No. In most of those, specifically all from Martin L. Fackler, Dr Gary K Roberts, Duncan McPherson, and the FBI- they specifically do state that “ft-lbs” of energy is not a wounding mechanism, does not and can not tell you how deep a wound will be, how wide, nor the shape of it. It is functionally a useless metric as those I pictures I just posted show. You can’t tell which did which.

If nearly 4,000ft-lbs of energy and sub 400ft-lbs of energy are creating nearly identical wounds, clearly it isn’t the amount of energy that is the differentiator.

 

[Stache Attack]

500 with eldx out of 6.5 creed max.
400 max with ttsx out of 7mm-08 max.

That being said I shot a bull at 448 with my 147 eldx at 476 and had no issues. Bullet goes where you point with that gun.

Just my preference and where I hunt/live.

Wouldn’t be too afraid to push a match bullet a bit further.

 

[Article 4]

What are you talking about? You literally stated that this-





Which are objectively, and demonstrably false.







No. In most of those, specifically all from Martin L. Fackler, Dr Gary K Roberts, Duncan McPherson, and the FBI- they specifically do state that “ft-lbs” of energy is not a wounding mechanism, does not and can not tell you how deep a wound will be, how wide, nor the shape of it. It is functionally a useless metric as those I pictures I just posted show. You can’t tell which did which.

If nearly 4,000ft-lbs of energy and sub 400ft-lbs of energy are creating nearly identical wounds, clearly it isn’t the amount of energy that is the differentiator.

Again they talk about the physics of the wound. A bullet hole qualifies as a wound until it causes death. Ppl wound animals with bullet holes all the time. The energy still transfers but the bullet hole doesn’t kill.

I also never said how deep it would be or how wide by a ft lbs gauge. What I said is energy kills and you got pretty bent. Then I laid out an olive branch and invited you for a drink. And you are still bent.

Not the first time we have difference in a subject. I love the learning and productive thought but know when a discussion has turned into an argument sooooo.

I’ll take the high road and eject out. Cheers.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Gone and done it again, energy does not kill. Tissue destruction does. Taking the highroad out doesn't do anything except turn and go the other way in this case. The argument doesn't hold an ounce of water.

 

[atmat]

What I said is energy kills and you got pretty bent.

Because you’re wrong. People have given you evidence and you’re either intentionally obtuse or just lacking comprehension.

But still, I’ll give it a try — with a vehicle analogy since you seem fond of them.

A 3000 lb car traveling 3 mph has about 1230 J of energy. If you hit an elk at 3 mph, are you confident it kills the elk?

 

[IDVortex]

Because you’re wrong. People have given you evidence and you’re either intentionally obtuse or just lacking comprehension.

But still, I’ll give it a try — with a vehicle analogy since you seem fond of them.

A 3000 lb car traveling 3 mph has about 1230 J of energy. If you hit an elk at 3 mph, are you confident it kills the elk?

What caliber is said car?

 

[Article 4]

Because you’re wrong. People have given you evidence and you’re either intentionally obtuse or just lacking comprehension.

But still, I’ll give it a try — with a vehicle analogy since you seem fond of them.

A 3000 lb car traveling 3 mph has about 1230 J of energy. If you hit an elk at 3 mph, are you confident it kills the elk?

Thanks for supporting my point. Big fast things like 3000 lb cars don’t penetrate. They don’t mushroom and expand. They kill with kinetic energy. Kinda like sledgehammers lol.

 

[Sako300]

what’s more important with killing and tissue damage with archery equipment and elk? Velocity or kinetic energy?

 

[atmat]

Thanks for supporting my point. Big fast things like 3000 lb cars don’t penetrate. They don’t mushroom and expand. They kill with kinetic energy. Kinda like sledgehammers lol.

Huh? You’re totally missing the point. A 3mph car won’t kill despite meeting your threshold for energy.

That’s the point. Energy is not a useful/meaningful metric for projectiles causing death. The only thing that matters is tissue damage, which is independent of energy.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Further than you are probably capable (or should be shooting).