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

[Article 4]

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).

Nice job actually reading the entire study.

I'm not trying to run up to a moose and hit it with a sledge hammer. lol. My 210 ablr works great and I’ll continue to use it so that do both make a hole and transfer energy

One of the effects that has confirmed proper bullet placement at longer ranges has been the wave of energy that surrounds the bullet hole and ripples the skin. Sort of like an oar in the water or a drop of water hitting the flat surface of a lake. What makes the ripple? Energy transfer. The bigger and faster the drop hits, the more ripples. Energy cannot be destroyed. It is simply transferred from one object or process to another.

 

[5811]

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

What size wound does 1,500 fps of velocity create? How deep will it penetrate? What will the shape be?

 

[nobody]

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.

If velocity isn’t that important, can you explain why every bullet manufacturer on the face of the planet designs their bullets with a “minimum required expansion velocity threshold” instead of a “minimum required expansion energy threshold?” And why are those specs the same for every weight and caliber bullet in a manufacturer’s particular bullet style? Since they generate grossly different levels of energy, why are the performance requirements for an ELDX the same whether it’s fired from a 6 creedmoor and a 300 RUM?

I’m not so obtuse as to believe that there isn’t some form of energy transfer happening, but I also don’t believe energy is a reliable metric to judge wounding capabilities, or predict bullet performance.

 

[stanginthe11s]

you guys are all debating the same thing just from different points. each argument in itself is useless, try putting it all together and maybe you will see something. we cant have one without the other. ultimately, force or energy is the primary point to all of this. its the manipulation of energy that matters.
article 4, you have to realize that while some of what you say is correct, it doesnt fit in hunting scenarios. you have to understand that an animal is basically an elastic medium, merely stretching tissue will not cause death or at least ethically. using energy as a sole basis for lethality will get you nowhere. for all intent purpose it is an arbitrary #. a bullet carrying 4000 ft lbs will act the same as one carrying 400 ft lbs because the target can only absorb so much energy. basically, of that 4000 ft lbs, you only imparted 400 to the target. this is seen simply by the fact that one bullet will be found on the off side of the animal and the other will be far away after passing through.

there is so much that goes into this that its pointless to argue.

 

[Article 4]

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

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

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.

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.

Agree, energy is what makes a bullet go down the bbl. Since we know energy cannot be destroyed, that bullet energy has to be transferred someplace. In this case, into the animal.

Whether I understand is inconsequential, which is why i read and quote ballistics experts. No, I don't have a PHD in ballistics, although I do study it for facts rather than emotions. So perhaps an amateur ballistician. My expertise is in another kind of science.

Let me go full geek.

The baseline US army testing has been hotly debated from Fackler in the Viet Nam Era. Those data have been discounted with studies from multiple scientists. For instance Goransson et al stated "the effect of pressures seen in brain tissue from high velocity impacts in the chest cannot be ruled out." So, even though there is a hole 28 inches from the brain, energy and pressure destroyed brain tissue. This was then checked and corroborated in a peer review by Suneson et al.

I agree creating a hole AND energetic shock are both contributors. Blunt force trauma death is possible.

Hydrostatic shock is Energy transfer "It is generally recognized that when a high-velocity bullet strikes the body and moves through soft tissues, pressures develop which are measured in thousands of atmospheres and generally requires displacement of fluid however the displacement of that fluid is widely accepted as energy.

Actually, three different types of pressure/energy changes appear: (1) shock wave pressures or sharp, high-pressure pulses, formed when the bullet hits the body surface; (2) very high-pressure regions immediately in front and to each side of the moving bullet continue radiation of the wave that in extreme cases can create extreme heat and damage; (3) relatively slow, low-pressure changes connected with the behavior of the large projectile for a temporary cavity, in some cases even behind the bullet. Such energetic pressure changes appear to be responsible for what is known to hunters as hydraulic shock—a hydraulic transmission of energy that is believed to cause instant death of animals hit by high-velocity bullets

So look all. I consider everyone here to be a partner in hunting and shooting. I prefer to keep it that way. That said, I have said my piece and what I believe to be true based on experience and science.

Check me, tell me i am wrong. All good. Appreciate the brain expansion in this discussion.

Cheers to you all and what you believe. I have my thing and will stick with it

 

[stanginthe11s]

If velocity isn’t that important, can you explain why every bullet manufacturer on the face of the planet designs their bullets with a “minimum required expansion velocity threshold” instead of a “minimum required expansion energy threshold?” And why are those specs the same for every weight and caliber bullet in a manufacturer’s particular bullet style? Since they generate grossly different levels of energy, why are the performance requirements for an ELDX the same whether it’s fired from a 6 creedmoor and a 300 RUM?

I’m not so obtuse as to believe that there isn’t some form of energy transfer happening, but I also don’t believe energy is a reliable metric to judge wounding capabilities, or predict bullet performanc

first, think simplistic. how many people would understand energy threshold? its easier to grasp velocity than explain how much energy is required to create expansion in various mediums. why they're the same? technically they're not but again, its easier to give a relative average.
now, realize that velocity is energy and it takes energy to expand said bullet. all things play a part.
also, when I say velocity isn't as important, I'm referring to lethality. we can change certain parameters to create what we need as far a killing an animal goes.

 

[stanginthe11s]

article 4, yes that is all valid but again were talking about hunting in its conventional form. with the right set of parameters you could create many outcomes. we could theoretically kill an elk without ever hitting it, but the likelihood of that is well, not likely lol. killing a target with a concussive force from a high speed projectile is highly improbable though possible.
like I said, its the manipulation of energy that matters. energy can be transferred to an animal in many ways. high velocity, pointy bullets or low velocity blunt bullets, both can impart the same force onto a target, both can penetrate the same. don't get hung up on ft lbs of energy because alone it means nothing.

again, you guys are all correct. all the pieces are there but how you arrange them will paint different pictures. each piece may seem more important than the other for a given scenario but ultimately, they all go hand in hand.

 

[buffybr]

I shot my first elk, a 5x5 bull, back when I was in college in 1966. I used a borrowed iron sighted .30-40 Krag with whatever bullets my Uncle had for that rifle.

I didn't know much about hunting, and when I spotted that bull and his cows, they were in the valley bottom below my college roommate and me. I said that I was going to get closer, and I hadn't gone 5 steps and my roommate opened fire. I sat down to shoot, and the front sight bead completely covered that bull.

A good hour and 12 bullets later, I finally had him on the ground.

The next year I bought my first centerfire rifle, a .30-06, put a Tasco 3-9x40 scope on it, and I became an elk hunter. Only my next 34 elk were shot at distances from 10 yds to not much over 300 yds. Even the bulls that I've shot with my current favorite elk rifle, my .300 Weatherby, I first spotted them at over 300 yds but cut the distance down to less than 175 yds before Ishot.

I practice shooting almost every week at our range at targets out to 430 yds (our longest berm), but since that first bull elk, I've shot probably 200 big game animals from 4 continents, and maybe 5 were shot at over 300 yds, and none over 350 yds.

So I guess my effective range for elk, or any big game animal, and with any bullet or rifle is about 350 yds.

 

[Hoosker Doo]

Agree, energy is what makes a bullet go down the bbl. Since we know energy cannot be destroyed, that bullet energy has to be transferred someplace. In this case, into the animal.

Whether I understand is inconsequential, which is why i read and quote ballistics experts. No, I don't have a PHD in ballistics, although I do study it for facts rather than emotions. So perhaps an amateur ballistician. My expertise is in another kind of science.

Let me go full geek.

The baseline US army testing has been hotly debated from Fackler in the Viet Nam Era. Those data have been discounted with studies from multiple scientists. For instance Goransson et al stated "the effect of pressures seen in brain tissue from high velocity impacts in the chest cannot be ruled out." So, even though there is a hole 28 inches from the brain, energy and pressure destroyed brain tissue. This was then checked and corroborated in a peer review by Suneson et al.

I agree creating a hole AND energetic shock are both contributors. Blunt force trauma death is possible.

Hydrostatic shock is Energy transfer "It is generally recognized that when a high-velocity bullet strikes the body and moves through soft tissues, pressures develop which are measured in thousands of atmospheres and generally requires displacement of fluid however the displacement of that fluid is widely accepted as energy.

Actually, three different types of pressure/energy changes appear: (1) shock wave pressures or sharp, high-pressure pulses, formed when the bullet hits the body surface; (2) very high-pressure regions immediately in front and to each side of the moving bullet continue radiation of the wave that in extreme cases can create extreme heat and damage; (3) relatively slow, low-pressure changes connected with the behavior of the large projectile for a temporary cavity, in some cases even behind the bullet. Such energetic pressure changes appear to be responsible for what is known to hunters as hydraulic shock—a hydraulic transmission of energy that is believed to cause instant death of animals hit by high-velocity bullets

So look all. I consider everyone here to be a partner in hunting and shooting. I prefer to keep it that way. That said, I have said my piece and what I believe to be true based on experience and science.

Check me, tell me i am wrong. All good. Appreciate the brain expansion in this discussion.

Cheers to you all and what you believe. I have my thing and will stick with it

Where I get hung up about this discussion is that per the study you shared, any hunting rifle cartridge that is legal to use delivers enough "energy" or "hydrostatic shock" to be effectively lethal at all practical ranges. So I see discussing it at all as a moot point. If they all meet the acceptable threshold for killing from a hydrostatic shock perspective, then we can spend our energy looking into other factors that may actually increase lethality, like bullet design, diameter, weight, velocity, etc.

 

[Article 4]

Where I get hung up about this discussion is that per the study you shared, any hunting rifle cartridge that is legal to use delivers enough "energy" or "hydrostatic shock" to be effectively lethal at all practical ranges. So I see discussing it at all as a moot point. If they all meet the acceptable threshold for killing from a hydrostatic shock perspective, then we can spend our energy looking into other factors that may actually increase lethality, like bullet design, diameter, weight, velocity, etc.

Agree!

 

[Pharmseller]

Help me understand.

Consider the 300 Weatherby Mag shooting 180 grain Nosler Partitions. Muzzle velocity 3250 fps, energy at 100 yards around 3700 ft/lbs. That’s a lot of energy!

Opening day, 2000, I shot a 4x4 Roosevelt bull tight behind the shoulder (the front shoulder for those of you keeping score) at around 80 yards. What did those 3700 ft/lbs of energy do?

They made a deeper hole in the ground behind the bull after a double lung pass through.

What did the second bucket of 3700 ft/lbs of energy do after another double lung pass through?

Another deep hole in the ground on the other side of the bull.

What did the bull do after the first shot? He kept looking at me. How about after the second shot? He started to walk off.

Walk off.

The third shot broke his neck and he dropped. The first 7400 ft/lbs of energy had no noticeable effect.

Fast forward to the bull I pictured earlier. About the same size, maybe 20 yards closer. Also broadside. 140 grain Partition fired from a 7mm-08, mv 2880, not near the same energy. Similar bullet placement but the bullet stopped under the hide.

How did the bull react? One startled step forward, the same step backward, fell over. I had worked the bolt and had the crosshairs on him but his ass pulled the rest of him down so I didn’t hit him again.

I have more stories, similar results.

Now, it’s an unfortunate truth that elk can’t read, otherwise that bull from opening day might have had the opportunity to read Weatherby’s ballistics tables and known that he should have been lifted off his feet by the nearly two tons of energy from just one bullet, much less two.

So as for me, I will continue to pay attention to construction, velocity, and placement.




P

 

[Formidilosus]

What size wound does 1,500 fps of velocity create? How deep will it penetrate? What will the shape be?

Give me a specific bullet an I will tell you. Though, at 1,500fps impact almost all bullets will penetrate 6-10”, yaw and exit sometimes sideways, but generally base first with no bullet upset. Very few bullets upset below 1,800fps impact.


Just in case you aren’t aware because you didn’t read the whole thread- you are making the point. To know what a bullet will do in tissue- you must shoot it into tissue, or properly calibrated tissue simulate at differing impact velocities and measure the resulting wound channel.

 

[stanginthe11s]

I think it's important to specify what type of bullets we are referencing. at 1500 fps there are plenty of bullets that will react or upset as well as have different penetration limits. there are a lot of variables such as mass, shape, design, target densities etc. that can change things. setting a baseline for this debate would be beneficial to all.

I can tell you guys myself and many other have dispatched animals with subsonic rounds, and some of those bullets mushroomed perfectly. I and many others have also used air guns to drop deer, this is with a slug hitting at around 700 fps and penetration was ideal as well as bullet upset. this is why velocity is not the deciding factor for lethality, nor is ft lbs of energy. velocity may be a main factor for certain bullets, but we have the choice to use what we want.
there have also been plenty of people who have seen minimal penetration and minimal destruction with very high velocity, high energy impacts. everything has a yield strength, always remember equal and opposite reactions. with proper bullet selection you can be effective at a very wide range of velocity or distance.

 

[35WhelenAI]

With respect to energy, momentum, et al... Does it matter an ever-lovin' rats butt that the energy guys get dead animals, while expansion (frangible, middle of the road or high weight retention) guys get dead animals, and momentum guys get dead animals? IMO, no. They are all dead.

Live your "dream", live your "reality", live your "somewhere in between" and keep meat putting meat in the freezer.

 

[Dobermann]

What size wound does 1,500 fps of velocity create? How deep will it penetrate? What will the shape be?

 

[5811]

View attachment 682863

Hahaha. My point was just that velocity also requires context, something people dismiss sometimes when making the case that velocity is the only number you need to predict damage.

 

[Formidilosus]

Hahaha. My point was just that velocity also requires context, something people dismiss sometimes when making the case that velocity is the only number you need to predict damage.

Velocity by itself is also useless.

To know what a wound change will look like- how deep, how wide, overall shape; you must shoot each bullet into tissue or properly calibrated tissue simulate at differing impact velocities, than measure the resulting wounds created.

For most projectiles, manufacturers make each line/model regardless of caliber upset at the same impact velocity- therefor that is a useful metric. Those differing calibers and weights will have widely varying fit-lbs of energy at upset limit- which t reason is why ft-lbs of energy is not a useful metric.



For a given type/model/line of projectile, in general:

Lower limit of Ft-lbs of energy- varies wildly by caliber and weight

Lower limit impact velocity- the same for all.

 

[sneaky]

That’s exactly what that “momentum” creates. Kinetic ENERGY- not my data or opinion - it is as stated in milspec testing

Negative ghostrider. KE is the amount of force required to stop an object over the span of 1 foot. Momentum is the force required to stop an object over the span of one second. Not the same. KE may start the party, but momentum finishes it. You can have an absolute garbage projo with high KE, and get very little if any effect on target. You can have a slow, low KE properly designed projo wreak havoc. KE is a useless metric.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

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

Energy matters. Period. That’s it.

Cheers!

No it doesn't. Recurves and longbows produce very little energy, and kill stuff dead as a high "KE" weapon. Properly designed projectiles matter. Period. That's it.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Agree, energy is what makes a bullet go down the bbl. Since we know energy cannot be destroyed, that bullet energy has to be transferred someplace. In this case, into the animal.

Whether I understand is inconsequential, which is why i read and quote ballistics experts. No, I don't have a PHD in ballistics, although I do study it for facts rather than emotions. So perhaps an amateur ballistician. My expertise is in another kind of science.

Let me go full geek.

The baseline US army testing has been hotly debated from Fackler in the Viet Nam Era. Those data have been discounted with studies from multiple scientists. For instance Goransson et al stated "the effect of pressures seen in brain tissue from high velocity impacts in the chest cannot be ruled out." So, even though there is a hole 28 inches from the brain, energy and pressure destroyed brain tissue. This was then checked and corroborated in a peer review by Suneson et al.

I agree creating a hole AND energetic shock are both contributors. Blunt force trauma death is possible.

Hydrostatic shock is Energy transfer "It is generally recognized that when a high-velocity bullet strikes the body and moves through soft tissues, pressures develop which are measured in thousands of atmospheres and generally requires displacement of fluid however the displacement of that fluid is widely accepted as energy.

Actually, three different types of pressure/energy changes appear: (1) shock wave pressures or sharp, high-pressure pulses, formed when the bullet hits the body surface; (2) very high-pressure regions immediately in front and to each side of the moving bullet continue radiation of the wave that in extreme cases can create extreme heat and damage; (3) relatively slow, low-pressure changes connected with the behavior of the large projectile for a temporary cavity, in some cases even behind the bullet. Such energetic pressure changes appear to be responsible for what is known to hunters as hydraulic shock—a hydraulic transmission of energy that is believed to cause instant death of animals hit by high-velocity bullets

So look all. I consider everyone here to be a partner in hunting and shooting. I prefer to keep it that way. That said, I have said my piece and what I believe to be true based on experience and science.

Check me, tell me i am wrong. All good. Appreciate the brain expansion in this discussion.

Cheers to you all and what you believe. I have my thing and will stick with it

Key word in bold text is "believed". That's what's believed to kill, not what has been proven.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk