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

[Article 4]

I did. You clearly can't accept that you are wrong. I really don't care if you take me seriously or not.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

When a debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser

 

[Grundy53]

When a debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser

More like deflection. But keep going. You are doing great.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[IDVortex]

At the end of the day, the only logical caliber for elk is a M1 Abram. Because if a elk gets hit with one of those rounds. It's a dead elk. Dead elk don't talk.

 

[Article 4]

More like deflection. But keep going. You are doing great.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Thanks, I feel like I am doing great!

A Ballistician PHD at West Point and a Physics PHD at Harvard looked at this specifically in a paper titled "Scientific Evidence for “Hydrostatic Shock.” This is a peer reviewed document with full citations from a multitude of sources with clear conclusions that Hydrostatic shock and energy have significant damaging affect on tissue at levels about 300 ft lbs of shock energy.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA526059.pdf

So when Litz, Quinlan, the chief ballistician at West Point and a leading Physics professor at Harvard say its true, I tend to believe them.

 

[greenomics]

People still respect Harvard??

 

[3325]

As I was reading this thread, I started to develop a headache. Then, I looked at the .270 and the '06 in my gun cabinet and immediately felt better.

You young'uns behave now. Y'hear?

 

[atmat]

Hydrostatic shock and energy have significant damaging affect on tissue at levels about 300 ft lbs of shock energy.

^^ so in this, you’re arguing for energy based on hydrostatic shock (a topic that’s controversial and highly-debated).

But here you’re equating energy with penetration:

I look at max effective range as the amount of energy - which can equate to amount of penetration -

And here you’re equating energy to damage to immediate vital organs:

transferring that amount of energy in the vitals helps to ensure a dead elk

It sounds like you’re just throwing stuff to see what will stick, since you’re ultimately using energy to argue three different things.

Btw, for what it’s worth, even your authors have suggested that hydrostatic shock, if it exists, should be far down the totem pole of how to choose a cartridge.

 

[Article 4]

^^ so in this, you’re arguing for energy based on hydrostatic shock (a topic that’s controversial and highly-debated).

But here you’re equating energy with penetration:


And here you’re equating energy to damage to immediate vital organs:


It sounds like you’re just throwing stuff to see what will stick, since you’re ultimately using energy to argue three different things.

Btw, for what it’s worth, even your authors have suggested that hydrostatic shock, if it exists, should be far down the totem pole of how to choose a cartridge.

^^ so in this, you’re arguing for energy based on hydrostatic shock (a topic that’s controversial and highly-debated).

But here you’re equating energy with penetration:


And here you’re equating energy to damage to immediate vital organs:


It sounds like you’re just throwing stuff to see what will stick, since you’re ultimately using energy to argue three different things.

Btw, for what it’s worth, even your authors have suggested that hydrostatic shock, if it exists, should be far down the totem pole of how to choose a cartridge.

Hydrostatic shock exists. It is energy. Rifle bullets produce it upon impact.

Energy matters. Period. That’s it.

Cheers!

 

[Pharmseller]

My opinions only.

Energy is BS

Velocity is crucial

Proper bullet construction is a given

Velocity at impact must be within the bullet’s performance window

Placement, with an appropriate bullet, within the performance window, trumps all

That being said, my 7mm-08 150 ELDX load is lethal past 675 yards

I wouldn’t shoot past 500



This fella died at 409 yards, my nephew’s first bull. He took three but just because he was still standing, so Ryan kept shooting. Good boy.





P

 

[IDVortex]

So if energy is the primary thing that kills, what is the minimum that matters, or to be ethical, shouldn't all elk hunting be done with a 338 Lapua? Energy is always talked about, and min is always claimed 1500, but that's the min. So why is that the min, if we're talking ethics and what kills, shouldn't 2000 be the number? Or does 2000 now take out alot of common magnum cartridges out past 200 yards?

 

[IDVortex]

I'm on the side that velocity has more affect on death and killing than bullet, within reason.. I look at as you need speed to fully expand the bullet, but also enough energy to get said round into thr kill zone.

With that being said, anything can be killed ethically if you use a good caliber for the game, with proven track history or your own data, and knowing what distance its still deadly with.


At the end of the day, people should know what they're shooting at, know the max range of your combination and not give to politicians asses about what folks think or if they're not man enough to hunt with a bigger caliber.

Id love to read some data on how many wounded/lost/or unkilled game animals have been result of smaller calibers vs magnums.


I swear, most of the magnum mentality is the same thought process of 'if ain't broke don't fix it' but never willing to try or look into something that could be better.


Great example as to how so many hunters Stay undivided.

 

[35WhelenAI]

This is how I look at it, maybe it's the way off.

Bullet momentum (motion) upon expansion is transferred to tissue as tissue deforms around the bullet path (wound channel). Depending on the bullet style, this happens rapidly or more gradually, relatively speaking in the context of expansion. More rapid transfer of momentum to the tissue (expansion) causes dramatic wounds (frangible bullets), less rapid causes a more consistent wound channel for its entire length (mono). In either case, energy is not a player. Expansion over a given amount of time transferring bullet motion into living tissue that is then destroyed causes the animal to die.

 

[IDVortex]

This is how I look at it, maybe it's the way off.

Bullet momentum (motion) upon expansion is transferred to tissue as tissue deforms around the bullet path (wound channel). Depending on the bullet style, this happens rapidly or more gradually, relatively speaking in the context of expansion. More rapid transfer of momentum to the tissue (expansion) causes dramatic wounds (frangible bullets), less rapid causes a more consistent wound channel for its entire length (mono). In either case, energy is not a player. Expansion over a given amount of time transferring bullet motion into living tissue that is then destroyed causes the animal to die.

This is how I look at it and agree with.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

My opinions only.

Energy is BS

Velocity is crucial

Proper bullet construction is a given

Velocity at impact must be within the bullet’s performance window

Placement, with an appropriate bullet, within the performance window, trumps all

Bingo.

 

[atmat]

Hydrostatic shock exists. It is energy. Rifle bullets produce it upon impact.

Energy matters. Period. That’s it.

Cheers!

You consistently reply without addressing any of the points or questions made by the person you quote. It’s a debate tactic reminiscent of my 3 year old child. Thus, I’ll stop engaging you. It’s becoming more and more obvious you’re just here to troll.

 

[Article 4]

You consistently reply without addressing any of the points or questions made by the person you quote. It’s a debate tactic reminiscent of my 3 year old child. Thus, I’ll stop engaging you. It’s becoming more and more obvious you’re just here to troll.

Perhaps read the threads. Name calling? Super mature.

I answered. Gave examples

2 industry ballisticians were quoted stating it exists. One from Berger and one from Hornady. They make bullets by the way

2 PHDs did a study. One from West a point and one from Harvard. Said it exists. Whether it’s the number one reason or number ten reason is inconsequential. It’s there. You even said so in your post.

Sometimes old outdated theories are made to be debated and in this case discounted. Glad you are done interacting. I have proven the point I believe, based on science rather than a random emotional opinion.

 

[atmat]

Perhaps read the threads. Name calling? Super mature.

I answered. Gave examples

2 industry ballisticians were quoted stating it exists. One from Berger and one from Hornady. They make bullets by the way

2 PHDs did a study. One from West a point and one from Harvard. Said it exists. Whether it’s the number one reason or number ten reason is inconsequential. It’s there. You even said so in your post.

Sometimes old outdated theories are made to be debated and in this case discounted. Glad you are done interacting. I have proven the point I believe, based on science rather than a random emotional opinion.

My guy, your justification for why energy matters has changed 3 times: (1) for penetration; (2) to damage vitals; and (3) for “hydrostatic shock.” You have arbitrarily chosen 1,000 as your minimum energy threshold without being able to explain why.

And you’re quoting authors who in other places correctly argue that bullet construction and velocity are the main determiners of performance. Yet seemingly ignore their stance there.

But you don’t seem to comprehend any of this, which I suppose is okay. Ignore is bliss, after all. Cheers.

 

[Hoosker Doo]

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA526059.pdf

I found the findings and recommendations of this study very interesting and, surprisingly, validating.

The final recommendation of the study was "In addition, bullets that fragment and meet minimum penetration requirements generate higher pressure waves than bullets that do not fragment. Understanding the potential benefits of remote ballistic pressure wave effects leads us to favor loads with at least 500 ft-lbs of energy."

It also mentions that incapacitating effects are "significant" at 500 ft-lbs, and "easily observable" at 1000 ft-lbs.

To me this supports what is being said in the .223 for deer, elk, moose thread.
● Use a fragmenting bullet that still achieves minimum desired penetration.

●Energy is a non-issue out of a rifle at practical ranges. Going with the 500 ft-lbs the study found to be lethal takes my 6.5 CM with ELD out past 1000 yards and my .223 woth 73 ELD-M out to 550 yards. Even if I go with the "easily observable" energy effects on killing of 1000 ft-lbs, I can still take my 6.5 CM out to 800 yards for hunting (which I don't plan on any time soon).

 

[Article 4]

My guy, your justification for why energy matters has changed 3 times: (1) for penetration; (2) to damage vitals; and (3) for “hydrostatic shock.” You have arbitrarily chosen 1,000 as your minimum energy threshold without being able to explain why.

And you’re quoting authors who in other places correctly argue that bullet construction and velocity are the main determiners of performance. Yet seemingly ignore their stance there.

But you don’t seem to comprehend any of this, which I suppose is okay. Ignore is bliss, after all. Cheers.

My guy, your justification for why energy matters has changed 3 times: (1) for penetration; (2) to damage vitals; and (3) for “hydrostatic shock.” You have arbitrarily chosen 1,000 as your minimum energy threshold without being able to explain why.

And you’re quoting authors who in other places correctly argue that bullet construction and velocity are the main determiners of performance. Yet seemingly ignore their stance there.

But you don’t seem to comprehend any of this, which I suppose is okay. Ignore is bliss, after all. Cheers.

Thought you were done interacting?

Energy transfer can kill without making a bullet hole. Blunt force trauma, Hydrostatic shock, contusion, kinetic energy etc never directly pierce vital organs yet they kill.

https://www.in.gov/health/trauma-system/files/Mechanism_of_injury.pdf

If your premise has no contributor e.g. bullet hole, you have absolutely zero affect.

 

[stanginthe11s]

In either case, energy is not a player. Expansion over a given amount of time transferring bullet motion into living tissue that is then destroyed causes the animal to die.

this is energy/force. energy is the sole dictator to all things related to hunting. without energy, a bullet never leaves the barrel.

Energy matters. Period. That’s it.

this is 100 % correct, but to be fair, you don't fully understand why or how.

I'm on the side that velocity has more affect on death and killing than bullet, within reason.. I look at as you need speed to fully expand the bullet, but also enough energy to get said round into thr kill zone.

it has been proven that velocity is not that important. its why a bullet moving at 800 fps kills as well as one at 3000 fps. what determines bullet expansion is energy.

Energy transfer can kill without making a bullet hole. Blunt force trauma, Hydrostatic shock, contusion, kinetic energy etc never directly pierce vital organs yet they kill.

sure, in an extreme instance some of this is possible but not in hunting. and to be clear if you don't create a wound channel, you can't have hydrostatic shock as typically referred to.