Energy has no value to me, because it has no direct correlation to damage.
A jacketed bullet has the same energy as a highly fragmenting, but the FMJ is no better damage than a field tip arrow. A mono/deep penetrating bullet can have the same energy but make a hole the size of a quarter and max damage about half dollar at best.
A memory foam mattress and a bowling ball can have the same energy when thrown, but which would you rather get hit with?
Damage is caused by the effect of the bullet. So, you need to choose the bullet for performance, and then make sure that it has enough velocity to do the work.
A good fragmenting bullet hitting above 1800 fps is going to penetrate 2-5 inches depending on the bullet construction/weight/velocity, and then create a wound channel shaped basically like an elongated football between 4 and 6 inches wide and penetrate between 18-24 inches. Fragmenting bullets cause FAR more total damage than a mono/penetrating bullet.
I also don't care about exits. When I destroy that much vital tissue, no animal can go that far. And, the vast majority of animals I have seen hit with a suppressed rifle don't go much more than 25-30 yards. I've never seen one go over 100 yards. There is just too much destroyed tissue so the heart/lungs/vessels can't get blood to the brain.
The .223 for bear, elk, moose thread shows that the .223 77 tmk is going to get enough penetration to cross the internals of any animal with a decent vitals shot (which is easier with a lighter recoiling rifle.) And, the circumference of the wound channel and the length of it's football shaped wound causes immense damage in the vitals of any animal. I won't go into the different in total thickness of a bear, elk, or moose to a deer, but it is inconsequential when you think about putting that shape into the vitals at any reasonable angle.
There is the feeling that, well, I might need a bigger bullet. I get that, it dominates the old school hunting lore and gun writers that talk about wallop and knockdown power. But, that's not what the evidence shows.
So, let's say a bullet can have twice as much energy or even weight, even then, the relative difference in wounding is inconsequential. Let's pretend that the bigger bullet doubles the volume of a wound, but the physical size of the damage increased inconsequentially when it comes to the time either takes to kill an animal.
Yes, the larger the bullet, then the wider and longer the wound channel. For purposes of the example below, I am not saying that if you double the weight of a bullet, you double the size of the wound channel, because it isn't that direct. But, for arguments sake, lets say you doubled the volume of damage to vitals.
A cube with one cubic foot of volume is 12" x 12" x 12" and a sphere is 15" in diameter. But, a cube with two cubic feet of volume is only about three inches larger in all the measurements, or about 15.125" x 15.125" x 15.125" and a sphere is just under 20" in diameter.
When you think about the spatial dimensions of the wound, going from .6mm to 6.5mm really isn't getting you that much more wounding. When the 77 tmk is shown to effectively destroy sufficient tissue to kill quickly, how much more tissue do you need to destroy? And, even if you double it, would you kill twice as fast? The answer is no.
You can get more damage than a 77 tmk, but there are "diminishing returns" for a heavier bullet. Because, you start to get more recoil and reduce the precision with which you, your wife, and your kids can shoot.
There are many that say go all the way to .223, which I won't argue with. But, I think the over all difference between shooting a .223 and adding a little more recoil with a suppressed 6mm is relatively small. Even a suppressed 6.5 creed remains very shootable. But, other than the "feel good" about more damage, above that the minimal benefit of more damage is offset by reduced shootability.
