Picking the RIGHT hunting caliber/cartridge for the job. By the numbers

[packgoatguy]

@packgoatguy

You're giving pack goats a bad name

I do my best... lets just hope the llama guys dont chime in too

 

[260madman]

30-06 200gr ELD-X KPS 39

it‘s just a numbers game but it does meet your criteria for 600 yards.

So when do the memes start?

 

[packgoatguy]

I looked up this KPS thing. Using OPs rationale I used the 30-06 because everyone hates it and the same bullets I posted on page 1.

OP minimum KPS 35 at 600 yards

30-06 168 NBT KPS 31

30-06 178 ELD-X KPS 33

pretty close to his self imposed limit of 35.

If you’re running into these I’d suggest that 20mm a few posts back.
View attachment 366342

I agree, the 30-06 was pretty close with some bullet options. Oddly enough for this topic... 30-06 is one of the few calibers i dont own... go figure. Like I mentioned at the beginning, part of my choice (as a 300wsm or even 7wsm would have likely met the threshold with the right bullets) was due to the fact that we have shot the 300wm and have several rifles chambered in it, and have ton of brass if we want to reload more. Met the threshold... and practical... win win.

 

[fwafwow]

Not enough links and excerpts of articles.

Much higher words to prior post count ratio.

 

[Wrench]

Don't be lulled into thinking more velocity is always better.

The 270 win was such a success because EVERY bullet made for 100 years was designed to go about 3k fps. The same does not apply to say the 30 cals. A 2600fps impact and a 3300fps impact are both possible MV's. Choose a thin skinned high bc bullet at 3300 and you're primed for possible failure while the 2600 will be very impressive.

Inversely, send a thck skinned bonded pill into a thin skinned deer at 1500 and 2500....2500 is a textbook bullet. The other might be able to be shot again.

Match your impact velocity to the bullet upset window and you can shoot any headstamp you want....just land it where it does it's job.

 

[stoopiddumbman]

It's like FOC for rifle guys.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

I thought reading that, man this thread needs that 6.5 Grendel guy. 4 posts later there he was!

Lol, it sure did, seek and yee shall receive. You should try a Grendel, you’ll be able to cancel your viagra prescription if you do.

 

[packgoatguy]

How much energy does it take to create a 3 inch wide, 20 inch long wound in an elk?






You mean sectional density that only remains static until the moment the bullet touches something? The sectional density that can and does massively vary once penetration has started?




Front area, that once again is only static until the touches something. You realize that aa non expanding FMJ and a sintered frangible of the same SD and frontal diameter at the same impact velocity have exactly the same “KPS” score and none of that tells you a single thing about what those bullets actually do in tissue?

So, if your point here is that bullet construction matters... let me be clear, again... I dont disagree with you. Please re-read my previous comments if you wont take my word for it... Yes bullet construction matters. I never suggested that my criteria for picking my preferred cartridge would somehow limit me to FMJ bullets or that magically It would fix all the problems in the cosmos. However, if I pick the right bullet (lets say you like the ELDX for an example) that bullet type and construction could be found in calibers ranging across all hunting interests and cartridge choices. So, applying my premise (that for Elk sized game I would prefer a cartridge that has the ability to throw a bullet of such a size and velocity as to achieve a minimum of 1500ft pounds of energy on target, 2000 feet per second of remaining velocity on target, and a KPS score of at least 35) to find the right cartridge for ME and my 600 yard limit, THEN I can go about seeking the right bullet for the job. In my case, as ive stated before, we have taken a lot of game with an ELDX, giving us about 40-50% mass retention on recovered bullets... but due to some questionable performance on elk this year, Im rethinking whether a harder bonded or monolithic style bullet might be preferable, perhaps a hammer hunter or terminal ascent or partition (when it comes to elk). We are almost certainly going to continue to use the ELDX or Berger for deer (except I would also plan to carry a heavier constructed bullet or two in my pocket for up close shots... as that is the one area the ELDX has been a problem... sub 100 yards, it is like a grenade... and causes unacceptable meat loss.) That said, my choice of bullet or type of bullet construction has little to do with the premise I led with the other day. Whether my cartridge of choice was a 223, a 6.5cm, or a 338lm, I would still want to choose a bullet type that was going to expand and penetrate for maximum tissue damage on target.

 

[Squincher]

The OP wants a 600 yard elk round and the .223 guys are mad he didn't pick what they themselves say is an effective 450 yard elk round? Makes sense.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Do what?

Killing power score and foot pounds of energy are of ZERO value in terms of effective terminal performance.

If you want to kill elk to ‘X‘ distance, skip the nonsense above and make your choice based on the projectile that delivers an ideal wound channel for efficient terminal performance to that distance and perhaps, beyond.

Bullets matter. KPS and ft lbs of energy don’t.

 

[Glockster26]

Is KPS something that’s been around a while or was made up recently?

 

[packgoatguy]

Is KPS something that’s been around a while or was made up recently?

It's been around for at least a few years.

 

[BjornF16]

Chuck Hawks came up with it in 2005.

Impact energy is meaningless. Hawks at least recognized this and tried to come up with a "working" formula. Still meaningless.

 

[Lawnboi]

Lol, it sure did, seek and yee shall receive. You should try a Grendel, you’ll be able to cancel your viagra prescription if you do.

Too much overlap for me with a 223 and a 6.5 creed. Plus having to deal with goofy mags and a goofy bolt face. No plan on ever hunting with an AR.

Now a 6br hunting rifle….That would get the blood moving.

 

[packgoatguy]

Do what?

Killing power score and foot pounds of energy are of ZERO value in terms of effective terminal performance.

If you want to kill elk to ‘X‘ distance, skip the nonsense above and make your choice based on the projectile that delivers an ideal wound channel for efficient terminal performance to that distance and perhaps, beyond.

Bullets matter. KPS and ft lbs of energy don’t.

you must love the guys claiming to take elk at 1500 yards with a 6.5 creedmoor... cause its all about bullet choice and shot placement... (and a heck of a lot of luck)... better hope a sparrow doesnt fart near your bullet's flight path during the 2 and a half seconds of flight time... you might miss your perfect shot placement... whoops, too bad you just hit the critter in the hoof, thats a bummer. But at least you hit it with the "ideal" bullet right?

 

[packgoatguy]

Chuck Hawks came up with it in 2005.

Impact energy is meaningless. Hawks at least recognized this and tried to come up with a "working" formula. Still meaningless.

While I dont agree that impact energy is "meaningless" I do agree that it does not paint the full picture for what makes an ideal or effective hunting bullet/cartridge. That is why for my own personal math I included other important variables; a minimum velocity threshold (that would ensure bullet performance and contribute to the potential for the effects of hydrostatic shock) as well as bullet shape, diameter, and SD... All compiled together to let me compare and contrast the pros and cons of various options in an "apples to apples" manner.

 

[amassi]

@packgoatguy

You're giving pack goats a bad name

Or is this a sentient pack goat with opposable thumbs?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Shraggs]

You are clinging to foot pounds threshold for killing and a fancier formula…

So if I wanted to kill a water Buffalo what option is best

45-70 with 405 GR, 2000 ish FPS, 2200 ft lbs

Or

6mm with 95 GR, 3200 ish FPS, 2200 ft lbs

Please don’t answer it’s rhetorical. It’s obvious. Ft pounds has no predictive wounding value. These two have very different profiles that neither of your premises capture.

Know your quarry, range and choose a wounding profile Bullet that meets those requirements.

 

[packgoatguy]

You are clinging to foot pounds threshold for killing and a fancier formula…

So if I wanted to kill a water Buffalo what option is best

45-70 with 405 GR, 2000 ish FPS, 2200 ft lbs

Or

6mm with 95 GR, 3200 ish FPS, 2200 ft lbs

Please don’t answer it’s rhetorical. It’s obvious. Ft pounds has no predictive wounding value. These two have very different profiles that neither of your premises capture.

Know your quarry, range and choose a wounding profile Bullet that meets those requirements.

You are welcome to your opinion, but please dont suggest that I am doing something that I am not; "clinging to foot pounds threshold" in fact, as ive stated before, that is the exact opposite of what I am doing... energy (foot pounds) in and of itself lacks enough value to explain the differences in terminal performance between one cartridge option and another. That is why I use energy as only one factor of several. Velocity being also important, but also the size and shape (not just the weight) of the bullet matters (as is factored into the KPS scale).

But thank you for this example, because you are directly proving my point about the importance of factoring in something like the KPS scale to better differentiate between caliber performance (instead of just relying on velocity or energy)... In your example, a 6mm 95gr projectile going 3200fps with 2200ft lbs of energy would score about a "23" on the KPS scale. Whereas, the 45/70 405gr bullet with the same 2200ft lbs energy would score about "100" on the KPS scale. (although your math is wrong if Im not mistaken... a 405gr bullet would only need to be traveling about 1560fps to achieve 2200ft lbs of energy). In this case, a "23" would be more than adequate for a deer sized target, but more hardy targets like a water buffalo would likely need at least a 50KPS (just speculating... I dont really know... ) Intuitively, we all know that a 45/70 would be the choice between the two options, but the KPS scale helps us see why, and some of the quantifiable differences between them. By the way... I dont believe that the KPS scale is somehow a measurable factor in and of itself... mearly a range... meaning that a "50" on the scale wouldnt somehow mean "twice" the killing power of a "25" on the scale. I dont know the relationship between the increasing numbers on the scale, only that certain known calibers fall into certain categories... ie known deer killing cartidges falling between 12 and 25 on the scale, known medium game cartridges (large deer/small elk for example) falling between 25 and 30 on the scale, and larger game suitable cartridges fairing between 30 and 40kps and on up from there.

 

[packgoatguy]

Or is this a sentient pack goat with opposable thumbs?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

guilty as charged