Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[hereinaz]

To be sure, I assume you asked in good faith. Hopefully your question is answered.

 

[rickyw]

When people say energy (m*v squared) doesn’t matter do they realize a bullet without velocity sits on the shelf and a bullet without mass doesn’t exist? I’m a little tongue in cheek but I can’t help it.

If energy didn’t matter I could throw a match bullet at an animal and get the desired result.

Maybe we should say, in the context of this discussion, that energy alone is not the end all be all of wounding. But a 30 caliber match bullet in general creates more wounding when entering an animal at the same speed as a similar 223 match bullet. Look at forms photos of 30 caliber match bullet wounds. They’re huge. There’s more mass to be fragmented. The grizzly I shot last fall with an 165 sst at 2900 fps had a wound cavity that would make a 77 grain tmk blush and surrender. Of course, since most people are shooting little bambies and antelopes a 223 match bullet does plenty. Bows kill too, but often slower than my preference.

 

[hereinaz]

The idea that a .223 is just as good as a 300 win mag to hunt big game, is asinine. Will it kill it, yeah, sure. Is that really what a sportsman and someone who supposedly cares about game wants though, just to kill it? I like giving animals a quick death and minimal suffering.

If you can't be accurate with a real man's rifle, that's fine. No need to come up with all this fanfare to somehow suggest that what you are doing is somehow better or smarter though. It's laughable and is right there with skinny jeans, IPAs, and balsamic drizzles.

How fast must an animal die for it to be an ethical kill?

 

[Bluumoon]

Borrowing these from the original poster. Which one has the most ft/lbs of energy?

 

[Bluumoon]

Thread 'Why Match/Target Bullets For Hunting'

Jan 22, 2021

This is going to be a barrage of questions. It will help to view me as a skeptic relative to the matter at hand. I am going to do some load development for my new 6mm Creed. I live in the southeast where shots are rarely taken at more than 100 yards. But, I fancy that I will take a trip out west one day to hunt antelope, so I am going to do my load development with an eye toward the possibility that I might shoot out to say (for the sake of discussion) 500 yards. This is a hunting gun.

Time to order bullets. I see questions asked frequently across various forums asking about using...

• Fartrell Cluggins
• Replies: 342
• Forum: Firearms

• 

This thread is pretty thorough and where the above diagrams came from

 

[peterk123]

When people say energy (m*v squared) doesn’t matter do they realize a bullet without velocity sits on the shelf and a bullet without mass doesn’t exist? I’m a little tongue in cheek but I can’t help it.

Maybe we should say, in the context of this discussion, that energy alone is not the end all be all of wounding. But a 30 caliber match bullet in general creates more wounding when entering an animal at the same speed as a similar 223 match bullet. Look at forms photos of 30 caliber match bullet wounds. They’re huge. And the grizzly I shot last fall with an 165 sst at 2900 fps had a wound cavity that would make a 77 grain tmk blush and surrender. Of course, since most people are shooting little deersies and antelopes a 223 match bullet does plenty. Bows kill too.

When I try to wrap me head around these concepts I try to think of extremes. A feather vs. a rock. Throwing a 6.5 creedmor with my hands vs. firing it out of a gun. So, yup mass, velocity and therefore energy absolutely matter.


But there is so much more going on when it comes to shooting an animal. Where it hits and what it hits for example. Shoot between two ribs will have a different result then if you strike one. And these are factors you can't control. That's why at the end of the day shoot what you can shoot comfortably and reliably. Me, I'm a wuss. I use a 308. No 300 win mag for me.

 

[rickyw]

Throwing a 6.5 creedmor with my hands vs. firing it out of a gun

Looks like we had a similar thought at the same time

If energy didn’t matter I could throw a match bullet at an animal and get the desired result.

That's why at the end of the day shoot what you can shoot comfortably and reliably. Me, I'm a wuss. I use a 308. No 300 win mag for me

I agree (not that you’re a wuss, but to shoot what you can shoot reliably). I use a 30-06.
Have you looked at Hornadys superperformance load for the 308 with the 168 Eldm? Looks like a nice load

 

[Marbles]

If you can't be accurate with a real man's rifle, that's fine.

The day a rifle cartridge makes a "real man" is the day I no longer value being a man. But, at least you are honest on how cheaply you hold manhood.

 

[Skydog]

You haven’t explained in a coherent way why foot pounds of “energy” matters to the discussion.

It was never my intent to do so. If you go back and read the OP, the intent was to try to resolve the apparent inconsistency/contradiction in these two statements:

1) Energy is completely irrelevant.
2) A complete pass through of the bullet is a bad thing because it wastes energy outside of the animal. In other words...more energy is desirable and it's more lethal if the animal absorbs more of the energy by keeping the bullet inside.

Those two statements are contradictory. If energy is irrelevant why worry about wasting/losing some of it?

And, the “zealous defense” of the claim really is a reaction to the fudds who say “you need 1500 foot pounds to ethically kill an elk.”

In THAT conversation and context, energy is irrelevant to ethically killing an elk.

OK. I have not made any statements about minimum ft-lb thresholds for killing deer, elk, or anything. So, that is not the conversation and context of this thread. And I may be somewhat of a Fudd, but I'm OK with that.

I thought there may have been some greater point to the discussion, but this wasn’t about much more than you picking at the “zealously defended” claim of something. It’s a rhetoric trick to create the absolute position and then pick at it with “I have questioned the claim that energy is irrelevant”.

See the first response above in this post...again...I was picking on the apparent inconsistency in those two statements.

I never challenged the small caliber/fragmenting bullet concept. I even stated that I was converted due to the overwhelming amount of evidence presented on this site and planned on hunting with a small caliber/fragmenting bullet this fall. Did you even see/read those posts?

I think your comment here and your assumption about my true intent is a bit of an over-reaction to someone who has no qualm with you. I simply think that it is somewhat of an overstatement to claim that "energy is totally irrelevant". And it doesn't even help your case to do so. That's why I said I don't see how the argument for small calibers rises and falls with that claim. You can easily prove your case without taking that "absolute position" on energy. And taking that absolute position probably hurts your case with the Fudds rather than helps it. So, why defend it so zealously when it is not even a necessary premise of your argument. Hope that clarifies the point I was trying to make.

You also have to consider that there does not seem to be 100% consensus on the "energy is irrelevant" claim even within your own camp. Hence, some folks wanting those small caliber/fragmenting bullets to dump all their energy inside the animal and not waste any energy on the dirt outside the animal.

My apologies if I offended you.

 

[dieselchessy]

Sufficient energy is needed to ensure proper projectile expansion. Beyond that energy is irrelevant. The resulting tissue damage from proper projectile placement is key.

Plenty of elk have been killed with a 6mm projectile having “only” 80 ft-lbs of KE. Right through the heart or lungs and they die. Every single time.

This one stuck out to me.
I assume your talking a 6mm arrow with 80 ftlb energy.
Im thinking no one shoots a 6mm arrow at an elk with a field point, so its not really a 6mm projectile.
Not that it wouldn't kill an elk.

 

[rookieforever33]

49 posts of arguing the chicken and the egg, or do we call it the fowl and the embryo, or the fryer or the omelet. Find a rifle you like, in a legal caliber, and practice a lot. Chances are with the range you are going to shoot at animals the bullet will be within whatever measurement you want to use. If the shot was good = dead animal, bad shot = wounded animal. If you want to be a better hunter nerd out on animal behavior and habitat, not which hammer pounds nails best and why.

 

[Marbles]

I simply think that it is somewhat of an overstatement to claim that "energy is totally irrelevant". And it doesn't even help your case to do so. That's why I said I don't see how the argument for small calibers rises and falls with that claim. You can easily prove your case without taking that "absolute position" on energy. And taking that absolute position probably hurts your case with the Fudds rather than helps it.

I agree. Over stating a position is a good way to undermine a strong argument.

 

[Skydog]

Forgive me for using this quote from Grok, but I am pasting it here merely to use it as an example for how confusing the language can sometimes be. I wonder if sometimes it's more a matter of semantics, folks talking past each other, not defining terms clearly, etc. Ignore how accurate the statement is...for my purposes it doesn't matter if it is a true statement or not:

Which is More Important?​

For deer hunting, energy is generally the more critical metric because it better reflects the bullet’s ability to deliver lethal damage through penetration and tissue disruption. However, velocity is a key enabler—it drives energy and ensures proper bullet performance (expansion or fragmentation).

It says:

• Energy reflects the bullet's ability to deliver lethal damage through penetration and tissue disruption.
• Velocity is a key enabler that drives energy, which in turn ensures expansion and fragmentation.

So, there is agreement that penetration (to vitals) and tissue disruption from bullet expansion/fragmentation is what kills the deer...and it is velocity that is the key enabler/driver of the energy needed to do this.

But what about that phrase that "velocity is a key enabler that drives energy..."?

One could kind of interpret/restate/paraphrase that in two ways:

• Velocity ensures proper bullet performance.
• Energy ensures proper bullet performance, but velocity is the key enabler that drives that energy.

So, which is it? Or is it both? And is "energy" being used in this context to mean something different than when folks talk about energy as "knock down" power or an "energy dump".

This is where I think some of the confusion and disagreement might come from...folks talking about different things entirely. I'm sure I'm guilty of this.

 

[Skydog]

Borrowing these from the original poster. Which one has the most ft/lbs of energy?

Not enough information to determine that.

 

[Bugger]

While you’re researching on AI engines, look up “askhole”. It seems now you’re just having fun trolling.

 

[eric1115]

Not enough information to determine that.

That is, in essence, the point.

The message of the "energy is a useless metric" crowd is, the energy number doesn't really correlate with wound channel characteristics or killing capability. You can have low KE options like a 77TMK or 108 ELDM that consistently produce wide, deep permanent wound channels. You can have high KE options like a 225 CX or 210 TTSX (or FMJ) at low-ish velocity that will poke a very narrow hole pretty deep, resulting in a long time to incapacitation.

108 Berger and 215 Berger will produce wound channels that are more alike than different if both are at same velocity (call it 2400 fps, right in the sweet spot for both). The 215 will be a bit deeper and a bit wider, probably 5" wide vs 6-7" wide, and 18-20 vs 24ish deep but broadly speaking that same football shaped cavity of shredded tissue. It might be double the cubic inches of shredded tissue, but both are more than adequate to quickly kill an elk and you're only gaining a little bit of lateral margin for error (like you can be an inch and a half further off and still have the edge of the cavity reach the same place).

They will be very different if they are at the same energy. At 1000 ft-lb, the 215 is around 1400 fps, well below the point where upset gets unreliable. Very good chance that we have a .308ish diameter column of destroyed tissue. The 108 is doing 2050ish, and will upset reliably, producing a football shaped cavity of shredded tissue.

Even given like bullet construction, energy doesn't correlate with wound characteristics nearly as well as impact velocity.

So if same energy doesn't correlate with like bullet weights but different construction (FMJ unacceptable wound channel, mono/hard bonded is narrow but deep, Berger/ELD type very wide but maybe not as deep), doesn't correlate with like construction but different weight, what is it actually correlated with?

If you have the pieces of information that let you say something meaningful about how the energy gets applied, you already have way more specific information than what the energy number might convey.

Without knowing construction and impact velocity, energy is a useless metric. Without knowing energy value, construction and impact velocity can tell you a lot about the characteristics of the wound.

 

[bmart2622]

When people say energy (m*v squared) doesn’t matter do they realize a bullet without velocity sits on the shelf and a bullet without mass doesn’t exist? I’m a little tongue in cheek but I can’t help it.

If energy didn’t matter I could throw a match bullet at an animal and get the desired result.

Maybe we should say, in the context of this discussion, that energy alone is not the end all be all of wounding. But a 30 caliber match bullet in general creates more wounding when entering an animal at the same speed as a similar 223 match bullet. Look at forms photos of 30 caliber match bullet wounds. They’re huge. There’s more mass to be fragmented. The grizzly I shot last fall with an 165 sst at 2900 fps had a wound cavity that would make a 77 grain tmk blush and surrender. Of course, since most people are shooting little bambies and antelopes a 223 match bullet does plenty. Bows kill too, but often slower than my preference.

You can throw a bullet 1800fps?

 

[taskswap]

IMO shot placement is king. I don't believe I've ever seen a 100% objective comparison of any round on any game animal. And I've seen LOTS of videos. The thing is, a 22 will take a deer with a shot through the eye and a 44 mag will NOT take a bear if you put it through its foreleg - and you'll be in for an exciting time.

All we have is lots and lots of "XYZ always worked for me" stories and even lots of "hit its shoulder, the round failed to expand." We never see "413 yards, 12 degrees down-angle, bull elk 4 years old, summer coat, shot was precisely 2.3" above and 1.2" to the right of the ridge down the middle of the scapula, elk was quartering-toward at 12 degrees, 24" barrel, 7mm-08 141gr Sierra GameKing" vs "413 yards, 12 degrees down-angle, bull elk 4 years old, summer coat, shot was precisely 2.3" above and 1.2" to the right of the ridge down the middle of the scapula, elk was quartering-toward at 12 degrees, 24" barrel, 7mm-08 150gr Hornady ELD-X".

It's not fair to even ask for it - it's not like there are twin bulls running around volunteering for "what kills me harder?" tests. But at the end of the day a .243 right between the ribs and through the heart beats a 7mm-rem-mag right at the point on the scapula where that ridge doubles its thickness. IMO what you buy with harder-hitting rounds is margin and error-tolerance. How much of that you want or need depends on the hunter.

 

[WhatToHunt]

You can throw a bullet 1800fps?

And he can palm a medicine ball and once scissor kicked Angela Lansbury.

 

[rickyw]

You can throw a bullet 1800fps?

No. That is exactly my point