Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[Macintosh]

People seem to hear whatever they want to hear in this argument. Putting in zero effort (ie responding without even reading the thread, as if that wasnt all covered ad nauseum) and apparently willfully misrepresenting the nuance of what others are saying doesnt help.

Guess thats too much to ask. THAT’s what’s sad.

 

[HandgunHTR]

And, no, watching folks delude themselves into shooting calibers too small for the task it hand is decidedly not fun. More like sad.

So, if the animal is dead and the wound channel is similar to that of one from a larger chambering, we are "deluding ourselves"?
Or, are you one of those people who think that we are just out there wounding all sorts of animals and only showing the dead ones?

The only people deluded in these discussions are the people who think they understand all the physics at play when a bullet hits an animal and are convincing themselves that they need a big bullet going fast to kill things made of flesh and blood.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Hey OP, I reas the first page of responses and then skipped to the end. Just wanted to add a couple of thoughts.

1. Dumping all expended energy into the animal is great until you miss or have a big animal. In my case, I shot a mule deer buck at 75 yards direct broadside with a 6.5 creed eld-x and it grenades with no exit wound. Thankfully it dropped immediately but that taught me the importance of an exit wound for clean kills and tracking when the shots don't go to plan. Exit wounds are always way bigger than entrance and let out a lot more blood.

2. The idea of transferring all energy into into the meat is directly proportional to the penetration of the bullet. If it shreds into fragments, you may not penetrate very far. Which some people say 7" is plenty for a berger hybrid hunter for example, but you gotta remember on these larger animals like that when they quarter towards or away from you the distance the bullet needs to penetrate grows very fast.

3. Surface area (drag and tissue displacement) is what slows down bullets. Change in velocity is directly relational to energy transfer into the animal. So, shooting small diameter 6mm bullets that mushrooms will be exponentially smaller than a larger caliber. Not 2x smaller but exponentially because the difference in radius is square to get area. So, mushroom to mushroom keeping all else constant. A larger diameter bullet will transfer more energy on target.

So, with the above being said and going back to your question about energy being irrelevant. IMO, the people who say they want all energy to dump into the target instead of passing through fall into a couple categories.

They're either trying to shred all vital organs but are forgetting about the scenarios mentioned in point 1. It's not the best idea for animals that are large because of misplaced shots or quartering shots. However, it is a fantastic idea for smaller animals like coyote, pronghorn, or whitetail. It really depends upon how big the animal is and how much of the vital organs are realistically going to be affected with one shot.

the other energy camp people are usually trying to maximize hydrostatic shock to disrupt tissue. This is great except using smaller calibers doesn't work well as mentioned in point 3.

So imo, does energy matter? Yes, but it's about how it's applied. The rule of thumb energy was derived from an era where all bullets were big heavy slugs and mushroom expansion was the cats meow. Switching to shredding bullets is great if you play within it's limits and/or understand the tradeoffs of potentially missing vitals. Imo, any bullet style I use should be able to have at least 80% or more of the bullet reach the far side of the animal in a perfect broadside shot. Anything less than that and it won't do well in quartering or poor shots

So, in your scenario 1 the animal dropped in it's tracks and somehow that is a bad thing? You would have rather had the bullet create a smaller wound channel so that you got an exit and had the deer run off? I don't get it. If the shot doesn't go to plan (i.e. doesn't hit the lungs and/or heart) an exit wound doesn't do much for you. If you hit the guts, both holes tend to get plugged up pretty quick.

Your number 2 bullet is categorically wrong. There is no proportionality between how far a bullet penetrates and how much energy is transferred. The main variables in energy transfer are the amount of energy required to deform/fragment the bullet and the medium being acted on (bone, muscle, blood, lung, etc). Contrary to popular believe it really doesn't take a lot of energy to damage (crush, tear, or cut) tissue. Case in point. Grab a roast out of your freezer. Thaw it out. Once it is thawed, take two sets of pliers and grab the meat and pull it apart. It doesn't take much to start tearing it. Now grab a bullet with those same pliers and pull it apart. See what I am getting at? Also, since animals are stretchy, some of that energy is being used up to create the "temporary wound channel" which is just a fancy way of saying some things get pushed out of the way. Those things will come back to their original position with no permanent damage being done. More energy transfer that has nothing to do with the lethality of the bullet.

For number 3, I am not sure you understand the meaning of "exponentially". Also, in your scenario of a mushrooming bullet, a larger bullet will have more momentum than a smaller one, so it is more likely to get a pass-through and therefore transfer less energy to the animal. That is why it is pointless to think in terms of energy. It is much better to think in terms of wound channels created and when put side by side, the wound channel created by a 6mm bonded bullet and a 30 caliber bonded bullet are similar enough that it won't matter on 90%+ of shots. Now, a 6mm TMK wound channel will be significantly larger than that created by a .30 caliber bonded bullet. Bigger wound channel = greater likelihood of quicker death. Energy doesn't matter.

Final point. It seems that you don't believe a small caliber frangible bullet will reach the vitals on "large" animals when taking quartering shots. My suggestion to you is to study necropsy pictures, ballistic gel (the real stuff, not the "Youtube" stuff) testing, and animal anatomy and see if you come to a different conclusion.

 

[The Fish Box]

 

[KHntr]

So, if the animal is dead and the wound channel is similar to that of one from a larger chambering, we are "deluding ourselves"?
Or, are you one of those people who think that we are just out there wounding all sorts of animals and only showing the dead ones?

I think thats it there, in those two points.

For conversation… I’ve noticed that in the last 4 or 5 years I’ve tended to acquire 4 or 5 or so rifles each year. I don’t play any rifle games, these are all aimed towards putting bullets in meat. Sufficient to say that when it comes to picking out a rifle for a hunt, I have options.

I eat meat at least 5 days out of any given week. In the last 30 years (not counting in restaurants) I can count the number of pounds of beef I have acquired using my fingers on one hand.

I eat a LOT of moose and elk. One might say that I rely on those two species so that I have food for the year even. Lots of family and friends get gifted meat every year as well.

Our moose season is 2 days in October, and 2 days in November. Those 4 days combined add up to about 40 hours of legal hunting time.
And we are limited to a bull that is a 10pt, or a tripalm brow, or a spike/fork. Finding one bull in that time frame is tough. Finding MORE than one after shooting and losing one would be damn near impossible.

So I use something that is going to give the best chance at success for a winter worth of meat. As difficult as that is for a lot of people to wrap their minds around, it’s been a 223AI with an 88 ELD m. That has proven to be the bullet I’m gambling my winters food on. Not any number of other bigger “more capable more ethical” cartridges that I own, I bet on the one that has folded up multiple bulls for me with the least amount of drama, with some pretty tough shots and shot angles.

Last year I hunted exclusively with that combination- backpack stone sheep, moose, elk, black bears, mulies, sitka blacktails… the only exception was scratching the 77 TMK ala 223 itch on a big whitetail.

I’m a relatively successful hunter, but I’m not good enough that I can shoot and lose a bunch of critters just so I can have a picture for people I’ve never met on the internet. I’m always going to bet on success and stack the deck in my favor where possible.

 

[D Lee]

I'm skeptical of "word" opinions. First hand experience? That's what matters in my book. Those experiences speak a lot loudler to me personally. The above post delivers solid credibility to the point he makes. Kudos for doing so. For now anyway, I'm sticking with my 6.5 PRC. Strong beliefs die hard and mine have been built over 7 decades of hunting with 22 rimfire to .458 Win Mag and pretty much everything in-between. Not saying others here haven't given their opinions merit, but KH, IMHO, said it best. Hard to argue with his findings. Well done.

 

[Billogna]

I'm skeptical of "word" opinions. First hand experience? That's what matters in my book. Those experiences speak a lot loudler to me personally. The above post delivers solid credibility to the point he makes. Kudos for doing so. For now anyway, I'm sticking with my 6.5 PRC. Strong beliefs die hard and mine have been built over 7 decades of hunting with 22 rimfire to .458 Win Mag and pretty much everything in-between. Not saying others here haven't given their opinions merit, but KH, IMHO, said it best. Hard to argue with his findings. Well done.

P

Thread '.223 for bear, mountain goat, deer, elk, and moose.'

Jun 3, 2019

DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ 176 PAGES? HERE'S THE CHEAT SHEET.

---

“Bullets matter more than headstamps.”

“Spent primers offer the supreme tutorial”.

I’ve read it here and elsewhere online. It got my attention. I started digging and asking questions and listened.

The 77gr TMK delivered by a .223 is where I ended up after many discussions and objective data regarding bullet performance and numerous pics of field results.

Now for the delivery system. Accurate. Repeatable. Reliable. Reasonable weight to afford steady shot placement and the ability to spot my own impacts...

• PNWGATOR
• Replies: 10,525
• Forum: Firearms

• 
• 
• 

There's thousands of real world examples of small caliber/big game success in this thread.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

There was a reason why the 700 nitro didn't penetrate and it had nothing to do with SD.

What was the reason?

 

[KHntr]

Well considering that the 700 Nitro Express wasn’t invented until 1985, it’s kind of irrelevant, no?

 

[Stinky Coyote]

let’s wait for his answer first, patience

Imagine though, why did they not know by 1985 that it wouldn’t work? You’ll see relevance soon enough.

Lol...one decade or another we will get smarter, or maybe century

 

[KHntr]

I think the more relevant point is that Bell died in 1954, 30 years prior to the advent of the 700 NE, so it’s pretty unlikely he was having problems cracking pachyderm skulls with the cartridge.

 

[HuntHarder]

So, is Energy irrelevant?

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

So, is Energy irrelevant?

 

[Shraggs]

I'm skeptical of "word" opinions. First hand experience? That's what matters in my book. Those experiences speak a lot loudler to me personally. The above post delivers solid credibility to the point he makes. Kudos for doing so. For now anyway, I'm sticking with my 6.5 PRC. Strong beliefs die hard and mine have been built over 7 decades of hunting with 22 rimfire to .458 Win Mag and pretty much everything in-between. Not saying others here haven't given their opinions merit, but KH, IMHO, said it best. Hard to argue with his findings. Well done.

A few years ago when I began to understand this concept and my notions of big magnum, controlled expansion, deep penetration and the holy grail of ft pounds…

Once I grasped the difference in wounding of bullets - just played out scenarios for success/“insurance”.

What choice deer/elk 200 yards

30-30 with 150 corelocks or 300 wm with 150 fmj?

6mm/243 with 108 m or 7mm with 160 tsx

223 with 77 tmk or 308 with 165 accubonds?

The insurance isn’t based on bigger more powerful calibers necessarily. Unless we standardize the bullet…

6mm/243 108 m or 300 wm with 168 tmk…

Maybe that’s a help, or not.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

So, is Energy irrelevant?

You didn’t wanna play?

Lmao to ‘well yes but actually no’

700 nitro
1000 gr .700” (assuming fmj)
.292 sd
2000 fps mv
Little south of 8900 ft/lbs
-Boddington had written about the 700 nitro failures to penetrate elephant heads and only knocking them out

6.5 manlicker
159 gr .264” (fmj)
.326 sd
2300-2400 fps mv
Little north of 2000 ft/lbs
-Bell ~300 or so elephants(unreliable primers(ignition) so preferred below)

7x57
172.5 gr .275” (fmj)
.326 sd
2300-2400 fps mv
Little north of 2000 ft/lbs
-Bell ~800 elephants(most reliable ignition)

Was any of that figured out prior to trail and error on game? We doing it any differently now?

What do you see in the above?

Penetration to cns off switch on that big of animal needs unchanging sd solid or fmj style bullet of at least .326 sd and at least 2200 fps impact as I’m sure that’s more likely the impact velocity as they weren’t likely holding the barrel to the head of the elephants or 2300-2400 fps mv and be very close to them. And you could get there with only 2000 ft/lbs at muzzle as long as you had enough sd and impact velocity. Both of which the .700 lacked.

And if you went higher on sd you could get there with less fps (spear/arrow). The .700 would either need much greater sd than .326 to compensate for the sad velocity, or, greater velocity than the pea shooters to compensate for its lesser sd. Either way your 160 ft/lbs recoil energy is gonna need to go up. The formula was bad from the get go on the .700 and even worse if it was a soft point. Odd that no one looked at whatever objective info we had from Bell to have a baseline first. Good ole trial and error, right up present times even 50 years later. Oopsie Daisy.

Now go run those numbers against other African stuff like .375 h&h with the lighter softs and the heavier solids. You’ll see a pattern in the formula I just pointed out and why you use the 300 gr solids for the big stuff and the 260 softs for the smaller stuff. Run them all. You’ll see a pattern but I can save you the time...already did. Bell showed it. It just took an objective view of the data and compare to the other options that are also well proven to see it verified. He showed us the minimum formula required. We just had to look at it differently to see it.

All energy in those options used up in trying to reach the destination, penetration to the cns off switch, the cattle with .22 lr, not a pumping system. So you can argue energy was irrelevant but was it really?

What’s different here in NA? We shoot variable sd bullets and we shoot pumping systems on smaller soft squishy game. Where penetration is easy to achieve so we can use excess energy to go outward into the pumping systems to try to achieve fastest kills and close gap on cns kill speeds. In many cases as we know now that with bonded tough bullets etc maybe change of the work was wasted in hillside on broadside shots.

What we still lack to this day is objective modelling of variable sd bullets and at ranges well beyond a few paces lol. Figuring out cns minimums with non variable sd bullets is easy. Or arrows. And we know those type of bullets in non cns kill zones are slow as fack at delivering the shade of death.

So yes and no lol. The work potential (curve) only irrelevant until we can actually measure it and measure it at all the impact speeds we need to measure it at. Can’t come up with usable rates or create calculators to objectify this until we do.

All these arguments go away when we get there. Most things work and there will be tons of overlap but for those of us pushing limits at distance and bullet sizes and or trying to split c-hairs on the good ones.

All the things we subjectively explain with the little objective info we have and gobs of the subjective info we have explained in one language all can understand.

It would change the game. And it needs changing. The gong show in just the last two pages of fly swatters, tearing flesh with pliers, two holes better than one or vice versa and god knows what else goes away lol.

 

[HandgunHTR]

You didn’t wanna play?

Lmao to ‘well yes but actually no’

700 nitro
1000 gr .700” (assuming fmj)
.292 sd
2000 fps mv
Little south of 8900 ft/lbs
-Boddington had written about the 700 nitro failures to penetrate elephant heads and only knocking them out

6.5 manlicker
159 gr .264” (fmj)
.326 sd
2300-2400 fps mv
Little north of 2000 ft/lbs
-Bell ~300 or so elephants(unreliable primers(ignition) so preferred below)

7x57
172.5 gr .275” (fmj)
.326 sd
2300-2400 fps mv
Little north of 2000 ft/lbs
-Bell ~800 elephants(most reliable ignition)

Was any of that figured out prior to trail and error on game? We doing it any differently now?

What do you see in the above?

Penetration to cns off switch on that big of animal needs unchanging sd solid or fmj style bullet of at least .326 sd and at least 2200 fps impact as I’m sure that’s more likely the impact velocity as they weren’t likely holding the barrel to the head of the elephants or 2300-2400 fps mv and be very close to them. And you could get there with only 2000 ft/lbs at muzzle as long as you had enough sd and impact velocity. Both of which the .700 lacked.

And if you went higher on sd you could get there with less fps (spear/arrow). The .700 would either need much greater sd than .326 to compensate for the sad velocity, or, greater velocity than the pea shooters to compensate for its lesser sd. Either way your 160 ft/lbs recoil energy is gonna need to go up. The formula was bad from the get go on the .700 and even worse if it was a soft point. Odd that no one looked at whatever objective info we had from Bell to have a baseline first. Good ole trial and error, right up present times even 50 years later. Oopsie Daisy.

Now go run those numbers against other African stuff like .375 h&h with the lighter softs and the heavier solids. You’ll see a pattern in the formula I just pointed out and why you use the 300 gr solids for the big stuff and the 260 softs for the smaller stuff. Run them all. You’ll see a pattern but I can save you the time...already did. Bell showed it. It just took an objective view of the data and compare to the other options that are also well proven to see it verified. He showed us the minimum formula required. We just had to look at it differently to see it.

All energy in those options used up in trying to reach the destination, penetration to the cns off switch, the cattle with .22 lr, not a pumping system. So you can argue energy was irrelevant but was it really?

What’s different here in NA? We shoot variable sd bullets and we shoot pumping systems on smaller soft squishy game. Where penetration is easy to achieve so we can use excess energy to go outward into the pumping systems to try to achieve fastest kills and close gap on cns kill speeds. In many cases as we know now that with bonded tough bullets etc maybe change of the work was wasted in hillside on broadside shots.

What we still lack to this day is objective modelling of variable sd bullets and at ranges well beyond a few paces lol. Figuring out cns minimums with non variable sd bullets is easy. Or arrows. And we know those type of bullets in non cns kill zones are slow as fack at delivering the shade of death.

So yes and no lol. The work potential (curve) only irrelevant until we can actually measure it and measure it at all the impact speeds we need to measure it at. Can’t come up with usable rates or create calculators to objectify this until we do.

All these arguments go away when we get there. Most things work and there will be tons of overlap but for those of us pushing limits at distance and bullet sizes and or trying to split c-hairs on the good ones.

All the things we subjectively explain with the little objective info we have and gobs of the subjective info we have explained in one language all can understand.

It would change the game. And it needs changing. The gong show in just the last two pages of fly swatters, tearing flesh with pliers, two holes better than one or vice versa and god knows what else goes away lol.

That is a whole lot of words to continue to prove you don't understand how physics work.

Again, SD doesn't really play a part. It had a lot more to do with bullet construction and Newton's 3rd law. I am pretty confident that a 140 grain Barnes bullet fired from a 7-08 at the distances Bell was shooting at would penetrate an elephant skull without much issue and it has a paltry .248 SD. Just like "energy" people who don't understand physics try to come up with a number for dumb people to understand why things happen the way they do. The problem with dumb explanations is that they are dumb.

So, it isn't that I didn't want to play, it is that you have shown you have no interest in actually learning anything, and I don't have the inclination to continue to try to get you to understand you are way off base with your assumptions.

 

[HuntHarder]

Phew! I thought ol' Handgunner was gonna keep this going for another few weeks. Glad you ran out of Inclination.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Phew! I thought ol' Handgunner was gonna keep this going for another few weeks. Glad you ran out of Inclination.

Lol, is that what you read? I read that I’ve got him by the short n curly’s and he knows it, and he looked right in the mirror with his insults about intelligence or lack there of. He’s trying to step out the side door with dignity.

But carry on we will. Because that’s all we can do. Can’t wait to hear more of his subjective explanations of all this while claiming to back it with his superior physics understanding. Loved the fly swatter and pliers thing. The insults are an easy give away on how the arguments are going.

Really, just go ahead and explain why the .700 doesn’t work. Can’t wait for that one.

And did anyone go check the 375 hh 300 gr? Sd.305 but what does it have to compensate for the lower sd of the manlicker/mauser? Guys, don’t look at me or I’m gonna have to point at Pete! He can get on base...it’s got more speed! Say 160 fps. How bout the .331 sd 30-06 220 gr, Hemingway? What does it do? Do I have to point at Pete again? It’s got both sd and another 100 fps over the old bell choices. Amazing choice imo. Go ahead and keep running the gamut, do the .400’s, ,500’s, the .35, .366 whatever...you’ll see the same damn thing. The solids with enough formula are known to work. And yup the 7-08 might too with only .248 sd but what does it have to compensate? Speed and like 300 more fps of it...what comes with that extra speed? Couple hundred ft/lbs lol. However, handgun hunter can go find out if it works as that ttsx ain’t gonna hang onto its sd at the speed he would need for impact with a solid to compensate for that serious lack of sd. I wouldn’t bet on the ttsx there, he can, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the the 7-08 with a solid 140 and those extra few hundred fps could do it. I’d still decline to be the tester though lol. Faster things are faster to slow and not proven that is the amount of fps it would need to compensate for that big of sd deficit. I’m talking about stuff already proven to work. I’m sure if Bell was still here and laws didn’t stop him he’d have a hay day showing us what may work with our common current options.

Or, wait for it, we could build a way to measure the work and save 1100 elephants. We already know what works, now let’s see why, objectively. And see what hasn’t worked, and why.

Who understands this better than the other?

Guy wants to argue this worse than I do. And steers thing off in the ditch trying to find some way to get an upper hand. Boy is wicked smaht.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

And what the fack else ya got to do waiting for spring? Enjoy the show, I know you are

The last two pages went better than expected! Better than a Netflix series. I do tire when the shot placement stuff comes up though. These discussions assume that already. Shoot what you can place, pretty simple. It’s what happens after we are discussing. Comes in every thread and every few pages though, without fail.

 

[D Lee]

My last post on this thread. You're welcome.

Those of you posting on "the new approach to all this" may in fact be right. Some good evidence that you are.

What's disturbing is your reluctance to accept what "we doubters" have seen / been taught / believe over many decades of reloading and hunting with a long list of cartridges. We post our doubts not so much to disagree with you but to compare / examine / evaluate / process what you are saying. A bit more latitude on your part in your responses would lead to more productive, more enlightening discussions where we might end up seeing your good points.

The knowledge and experiences expressed in this thread are all appreciated. I, for one, share the same passion you have for creating the very best approach to this eminently worthwhile subject.

Cheers!!