Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[eric1115]

The low hanging fruit is so easy to poke fun at, I can’t resist from time to time. As long as someone has fully thought through their position based on real world factors, I wouldn’t want anyone to change their mind. It’s fun having so many minimalists all in one place. As minimalists in many hobbies discover, it’s not always easy being on the edge of effectiveness. You fellers spend a lot of time convincing each other of this bullet or that, showing off bullet holes and blood shot shoulders - it’s apparently a lot of work being efficient.

I love talking about a fast twist Hornet, or the identical capacity 5.7x28, when talk about the 223 being a hammer at 700 yards comes up. Even you don’t want to believe these pipsqueaks are 400 yards behind the 223 in velocity. That should make them ideal 300 yard rifles. lol

View attachment 847232

Can you please provide an example of someone claiming that a .223 is a hammer at 700 yards? I haven't ever seen that claimed. You refer to "fully thought through position based on real world factors", then refer to "every time" something comes up that I literally cannot recall ever seeing once.

Also, it's been explained to you many times, if you set up a hornet to shoot 77's, and it actually did run them at adequate MV to retain 1800 fps at your desired max range, we'd roll our eyes at the effort and expense it took to do it but agree that it would work. But you won't, because it's a stupid exercise with large expense and hassle for no benefit. Again, fully thought through position based on real world factors. Can you show any examples at all of a hornet or similar being set up to shoot the bullets that we're talking about? If no, then why keep trotting it out?

And if turnabout is fair play, I'm curious as to why you don't think a man can kill animals with the guns that women and children use successfully.

 

[Bugger]

when talk about the 223 being a hammer at 700 yards comes up.

Just one link to someone saying that seriously would be nice.

 

[hereinaz]

But in the grand scheme of things...energy plays a part...so it's not totally irrelevant/meaningless to terminal ballistics...correct? What am I missing?

Are you guys claiming that energy is not part of the equation at all, that a bullet does not require any energy to perform, etc.?

Help me understand

Something is off in your analysis with the way you make restatements of other's positions using absolute terms like "totally irrelevant/meaningless to terminal ballistics" and "a bullet does not require any energy to perform." Please point to anyone who has actually said such statements.

Just two statements you quoted demonstrate you have interpreted their shortcut use of the word energy away from the clear intent of the writer. That is very poor logic and argumentation. Neither can be construed to be "claiming that energy is not part of the equation at all".

@HandgunHTR was clearly stating that it could not be "an accurate predictor" of the damage.

Similarly, @The Guide said the "energy reading is giving you the potential energy" and it depends on "bullet design, shot placement, and impact velocity."

 

[TaperPin]

It sure seems fast when everything is a blur, the animal is running (yes, even with a wallopy cartridge it happens a lot), trees in the way, and youre trying to reacquire the animal in the scope. But without recoil, that all happens MUCH faster and easier. If the animal isnt down, are you really going to not shoot again, regardless of cartridge?

It sounds good on the surface to spot shots for follow up shots, but past posts on the amount of lead for moving animals shows time and time again, hunters like the idea of shooting moving animals, but have very few skills to make it even remotely possible. One of my favorite competence checks is asking if people know the time of flight for their bullets, or how much to lead. If under the best conditions with a stationary animal the shot doesn’t connect, the odds of connecting with a moving animal is a pipe dream. Simply observing opening morning in antelope country will show in real world terms how poorly moving animals are lead. If it’s moving the odds are good the bullet lands behind the diaphragm or connects with the animal behind the intended target. lol

 

[TaperPin]

Just one link to someone saying that seriously would be nice.

Dude, Form shoots elk at 800 yards with it. You should read the 223 thread.

 

[hereinaz]

It was fun. It’s somewhere between page 200 and 500 in the 223 thread. Many folks have heard me mention it before so it’s not as much fun to bring up now as it once was. Turns out the pistol silhouette crowd used to shoot heavy bullets in the Hornet before turning primarily to the shortened 223 cased cartridges like 5.7x28 (same case capacity).

When I question why short range whitetail hunters aren’t using reduced loads in the 223, that also gets a ton of feathers ruffled. Apparently overkill on short range deer is ok. Lol

Find it for me if it is entertaining. It clearly isn't educational...

Also, here, you are taking one point to extremes that no one advocates. I find it is a tiresome rhetorical/logical trick that you purposefully exaggerate one claim of an argument and ignore other parts of the argument--and you know you are doing it--other wise it wouldn't be fun for you. It's good that you are willing to embrace it some in an ironic way.

If we were in a cooking forum, it would go like this:

Someone says, I like to eat chocolate. Some others say they like to use chocolate in a lot of dishes. Others like chocolate to garnish. They all agree that chocolate is versatile and should be used more. Then, you come in and say, if you say if you love chocolate, why don't you drizzle it on mashed potatoes.

I think you do understand why the .223 Rem is the practical limit of the small caliber debate. You know the difference of recoil between a .223 rem and 22 Hornet is functionally meaningless. And, you know that a pillar of the small caliber argument is reducing recoil to improve shootability and precision. You know your 22 Hornet argument is like telling a chef to drizzle chocolate on mashed potatoes.

Now, do what you do, but there are many who completely understand what you are doing.

This is not to say all your posts do this. You appear contrarian by nature and a self admitted pot stirrer, and its good that you contribute different ideas and thoughts. I've certainly been benefited by some of your posts as they contribute facts and force me to think and develop arguments more clearly.

I don't even want you to change. The world is boring without variation. In many ways, I am extremely boring.

 

[nobody]

Dude, Form shoots elk at 800 yards with it. You should read the 223 thread.

So one guy doing it on one animal one time, and speaking at length on podcasts about how he doesn’t recommend anybody try it in real life, and doing a necropsy with photos detailing what the bullets did on impact, is equivalent to “the 223 being a hammer at 700” (quoted directly from you)? Come on dude, we all know you hate the smaller caliber crowd and you hate form and you hate the 223 thread, but that’s a stretch even for you.

 

[hereinaz]

Dude, Form shoots elk at 800 yards with it. You should read the 223 thread.

With a 223 bullet or with a 223 bullet out of a 223 Rem?

Go find the post if you are going to quote it/him.

 

[Bugger]

Dude, Form shoots elk at 800 yards with it. You should read the 223 thread.

Who said it was a hammer? He also had to shoot it a bunch of times. 400y is the generally accepted rule here to keep it within its ideal velocity.

 

[hereinaz]

It sounds good on the surface to spot shots for follow up shots, but past posts on the amount of lead for moving animals shows time and time again, hunters like the idea of shooting moving animals, but have very few skills to make it even remotely possible. One of my favorite competence checks is asking if people know the time of flight for their bullets, or how much to lead. If under the best conditions with a stationary animal the shot doesn’t connect, the odds of connecting with a moving animal is a pipe dream. Simply observing opening morning in antelope country will show in real world terms how poorly moving animals are lead. If it’s moving the odds are good the bullet lands behind the diaphragm or connects with the animal behind the intended target. lol

Your premise assumes two things, and then goes full tilt into shooting moving game.

1) Spotting shots is only for follow ups.
2) follow up shots are on moving animals.

I agree with you on issues of shooting moving game. But, can you name any other benefits for spotting shots than shooting at moving game?

Edit to add, I'm joined in on the trolling game with Taperpin. I'll stop my part of thread hijack.

 

[nobody]

With a 223 bullet or with a 223 bullet out of a 223 Rem?

Go find the post if you are going to quote it/him.

If memory serves correctly, he told Ryan and Jake on the S2H podcast it was shot from a MK12

 

[Bluefish]

So, the bullet requires energy to do its work...correct? Bullet performance (proper expansion, fragmentation, etc.) is not solely a result of velocity. Both velocity and energy are part of the equation that makes the bullet do what it is supposed to do. So, in this sense...energy is not irrelevant/meaningless. Energy is required for the bullet to do its job.

However, energy is not a valid predictor of how the bullet will perform. Velocity is. Therefore, as an indicator of performance, energy is meaningless/irrelevant. So, in debates over cartridges, lethality/effectiveness, etc. energy is irrelevant/meaningless.

But in the grand scheme of things...energy plays a part...so it's not totally irrelevant/meaningless to terminal ballistics...correct? What am I missing?

Are you guys claiming that energy is not part of the equation at all, that a bullet does not require any energy to perform, etc.?

Help me understand...

The one thing I think many miss is energy is calculated from velocity and mass. It also has velocity as a squared term, so it emphasizes velocity over mass. when you look at the range of bullet weights that work, ie from a 77g 223 to a 147g 6.5. Yet they all need the same velocity to work, a minimum of 1800 ish fps. Again pointing to energy not being all that critical to performance.

I am sure there is a floor for the energy required to create the necessary wound channel, but I think it’s well below what is currently thought. Probably 300-500 ftlbs. When it’s that low, many bullets can get the job done.

 

[WCB]

I think where it gets a little confusing - at least for me - is this...

Let's say we have two bullets. Both bullets create a 2-6” wound channel and both penetrate 14+". One of these bullets impacts at 1800 ft-lbs of energy and the other impacts at 1300 ft-lbs of energy. No difference?

Correct...no difference if the wound channels are the same. The wound channel is the damage.

 

[Skydog]

Something is off in your analysis with the way you make restatements of other's positions using absolute terms like "totally irrelevant/meaningless to terminal ballistics" and "a bullet does not require any energy to perform." Please point to anyone who has actually said such statements.

Just two statements you quoted demonstrate you have interpreted their shortcut use of the word energy away from the clear intent of the writer. That is very poor logic and argumentation. Neither can be construed to be "claiming that energy is not part of the equation at all".

@HandgunHTR was clearly stating that it could not be "an accurate predictor" of the damage.

Similarly, @The Guide said the "energy reading is giving you the potential energy" and it depends on "bullet design, shot placement, and impact velocity."

View attachment 847238

You must have missed my post #97. It would have saved you the time of writing all this.

It's all good now...I understand what you guys really mean when you say, "energy is irrelevant".

 

[hereinaz]

The one thing I think many miss is energy is calculated from velocity and mass. It also has velocity as a squared term, so it emphasizes velocity over mass. when you look at the range of bullet weights that work, ie from a 77g 223 to a 147g 6.5. Yet they all need the same velocity to work, a minimum of 1800 ish fps. Again pointing to energy not being all that critical to performance.

I am sure there is a floor for the energy required to create the necessary wound channel, but I think it’s well below what is currently thought. Probably 300-500 ftlbs. When it’s that low, many bullets can get the job done.

I have seen and read threads with guys who report shooting deer with small/light highly frangible 6mm varmint bullets because they fragment violently down below the "1800" threshhold of typical hunting bullets. They say the terminal effect is equivalent to slightly larger and less explosive bullets at higher velocity. These are at the extreme, certainly, but it disproves the argument that "you need energy to kill".

 

[TaperPin]

Can you please provide an example of someone claiming that a .223 is a hammer at 700 yards?

It shouldn’t take more than the first 10 pages of the 223 kill thread when guys started talking about maximum distances. I just laughed at the guy who claimed 1000 yards, but clear up to 800 yards guys have killed 100s of elk. lol

. But you won't, because it's a stupid exercise with large expense and hassle for no benefit.

Are you kidding - it will be peanut butter and jelly on gold when my little Hornet 300 yard elk killer is up and running, because it’s so ludicrous. lol


It would be a total waste of money, but I have a lathe, access to milling equipment, and almost unlimited time, so the most expensive part is the barrel. I’m hoping for a heavy takeoff barrel with enough beef to completely remove the original chamber and rethread. The bolt was an honest $175 out of pocket, but who doesn’t like having an extra bolt? At one time PPG made a custom Remington bolt with Hornet bolt face.

And if turnabout is fair play, I'm curious as to why you don't think a man can kill animals with the guns that women and children use successfully.

I’m all for having fun killing things. My 243 took a cow off a haystack - a 100 gr Partition is not a good bullet for that - it ran 300-400 yards before piling up.

I even have a 22 creed - seems like a good woman and child cartridge. I keep trying to loan it out, but none of my friends want to hunt with it.

My favorite doe rifle right now is a 6mm-06.

 

[Skydog]

There is a academically-measurable difference in wound size assuming same bullet construction—given similar velocity and same bullet construction, the bigger one will make a bigger wound. The question is whether the difference has any benefit? If the smaller is plenty big to kill reliably and quickly…what is the benefit of a bigger hole? The folks saying there is “no difference” are not saying the two bullets will create the same sized hole, they are saying there is a point of diminishing returns, after which there is no further benefit to making the wound even larger. Dead=dead. “More dead” isnt a thing. Not everyone agrees with that, but thats what the statement is saying.

Correct...no difference if the wound channels are the same. The wound channel is the damage.

Well...there is potentially a difference...the one with more energy may make a bigger wound. However, I get that dead is dead and "more dead" is not a thing. I understand the diminishing returns argument.

However, it's also not entirely unreasonable for some folks to think that creating a bigger wound is beneficial and therefore they might prefer a higher energy cartridge. Are there scenarios where a 6" wound might be more lethal than a 2" wound, or incapacitate an animal more quickly (difference between recovery and a lost animal), etc. I would think that there are scenarios where a bigger wound (more tissue destruction) might make a difference. So, I can understand why some folks prefer to hedge their bets with more energy and a "bigger hole" (i.e. potential for larger wounds) and the other folks say it doesn't matter because dead is dead.

Not sure why it has to devolve into different tribes ("small caliber cult" vs "Fudds")...

 

[Formidilosus]

Well...there is potentially a difference...the one with more energy may make a bigger wound. However, I get that dead is dead and "more dead" is not a thing. I understand the diminishing returns argument.

However, it's also not entirely unreasonable for some folks to think that creating a bigger wound is beneficial and therefore they might prefer a higher energy cartridge. Are there scenarios where a 6" wound might be more lethal than a 2" wound, or incapacitate an animal more quickly (difference between recovery and a lost animal), etc. I would think that there are scenarios where a bigger wound (more tissue destruction) might make a difference. So, I can understand why some folks prefer to hedge their bets with more energy and a "bigger hole" (i.e. potential for larger wounds) and the other folks say it doesn't matter because dead is dead.

Not sure why it has to devolve into different tribes ("small caliber cult" vs "Fudds")...

Yes you do. You’re doing it yourself. You keep saying “energy” as if it is synonymous with larger wounds- it isn’t. The end. No more. 300ft-lbs can create horrific wounds, 10,000 ft-lbs can create tiny wounds.

 

[eric1115]

It shouldn’t take more than the first 10 pages of the 223 kill thread when guys started talking about maximum distances. I just laughed at the guy who claimed 1000 yards, but clear up to 800 yards guys have killed 100s of elk. lol

Not what I asked. If you're referring to "every time someone claims .223 is a 700 yard hammer" you should be able to show just one example of that, right? Not just the one guy who killed at 800 and then said that he doesn't recommend that others try to do it?

Are you kidding - it will be peanut butter and jelly on gold when my little Hornet 300 yard elk killer is up and running, because it’s so ludicrous. lol
View attachment 847305

It would be a total waste of money, but I have a lathe, access to milling equipment, and almost unlimited time, so the most expensive part is the barrel. I’m hoping for a heavy takeoff barrel with enough beef to completely remove the original chamber and rethread. The bolt was an honest $175 out of pocket, but who doesn’t like having an extra bolt? At one time PPG made a custom Remington bolt with Hornet bolt face.

Show us when you get it done. Not practical for 99.9% of people, but sure. Go wild.

I’m all for having fun killing things. My 243 took a cow off a haystack - a 100 gr Partition is not a good bullet for that - it ran 300-400 yards before piling up.

I even have a 22 creed - seems like a good woman and child cartridge. I keep trying to loan it out, but none of my friends want to hunt with it.

My favorite doe rifle right now is a 6mm-06.

I'd recommend getting some more practice, maybe soon you'll be able to shoot kids guns well enough to kill cleanly with them.

 

[Bluefish]

I have seen and read threads with guys who report shooting deer with small/light highly frangible 6mm varmint bullets because they fragment violently down below the "1800" threshhold of typical hunting bullets. They say the terminal effect is equivalent to slightly larger and less explosive bullets at higher velocity. These are at the extreme, certainly, but it disproves the argument that "you need energy to kill".

It doesn’t disprove it at all. Just might mean the energy amount is even lower. At some point a bullet won’t have enough momentum or energy to penetrate the 14” to hit the vitals and create a 2” wound channel. The problem in writing regulations is the general orange army has no idea how the bullet/ammo they are using performs. If you use a big high speed cartridge, it can work with about any hunting bullet within 300-400 yards. Great for the uninformed and unpracticed masses. Easy to explain and if they can’t shoot it well, just say they are not manly enough. The hunters here seem to be a bit more into what makes it work and how can they improve their hunt.

Can you kill an animal with less penetration, yes if you hit the right spot, hence the 22lr argument. But I for one don’t think that’s ethical or repeatable enough that I want to hunt that way unless it was the only option.