Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[hereinaz]

So, to bring this back full circle...how would you "energy is useless" folks respond to the claim that it's better to not have a bullet pass through because you don't want to waste energy on the dirt behind the animal, you want a full energy dump in the animal, etc.?

Or...to make this more practical, and less academic...in your experience, does a bullet that remains in the animal incapacitate/kill faster than one that exits. Forget whether it has anything to do with energy or not. Regardless of the cause/why, does a bullet that doesn't exit usually kill better/faster?

The idea is make a rifle shootable and kill.

Fudd energy doesn’t give you that.

And, if you minimize recoil a small fragmenting bullet might not exit, and, who cares if it does? It is going to create massive trauma.

Energy and exit only come into the conversation in the context of responses to Fudds.

When you know a small fragmenting bullet will kill, the energy number is irrelevant and don’t whether you get a pass through.

They aren’t contradictory. They are harmonious.

 

[Skydog]

I'm looking forward to getting some real-world experience with these theories this fall and hopefully adding a few photos to the .243/6mm thread. Will be trying these out in my new Tikka .243 soon. SM rings arrived today, so will be putting the scope on and doing some factory load testing soon...

 

[hereinaz]

I also get a laugh when anti-energy folks claim large cartridges with double bullet weight at the same velocity are bad, but shooting animals twice is normal (double the energy imparted into the animal).

When I first showed up it was fun to equate 223 energy at long range to the 22 hornet 400 yards closer. Guys flipped out, said bla, bla, bla, and then it sunk in for some folks how ridiculously anemic this combination is. It’s not the mastodon killer many would like you to believe. A good source of proof most small caliber guys don’t fully buy into it is the sheer number of cartridges larger than 223 that are shot.

I’m also getting a kick out of many of the 223 crowd gravitating to heavy bullets in 6mm, and now 25 caliber rounds. Those who kicked and screamed about energy not making a difference are shooting much more energy, but now it’s ok. *chuckle*

Show me the post you had people flipping out over 22 hornet velocities. Sounds fun to read through.

 

[hereinaz]

I'm looking forward to getting some real-world experience with these theories this fall and hopefully adding a few photos to the .243/6mm thread. Will be trying these out in my new Tikka .243 soon. SM rings arrived today, so will be putting the scope on and doing some factory load testing soon...

Those ELDx are gonna hammer at 243 velocities. Slip it behind the shoulder for a double lung. Nothing can go far after that.

 

[Skydog]

Fudd energy doesn’t give you that.

And, if you minimize recoil a small fragmenting bullet might not exit, and, who cares if it does? It is going to create massive trauma.

Energy and exit only come into the conversation in the context of responses to Fudds.

You guys should really go a little easier on the Fudds. Some of the best people I know and all of the best deer hunters I know are Fudds to the core. Until I stumbled across this website a couple of months ago, I was one, and I guess I still am. But I'll be carrying a Tikka .243 with a Trijicon loaded with NBTs/ELD-Xs this fall. So, with a little patience...you can teach an old dog new tricks.

 

[Skydog]

Those ELDx are gonna hammer at 243 velocities. Slip it behind the shoulder for a double lung. Nothing can go far after that.

You prefer the ELDXs over the NBTs (Silvertips)?

 

[Maverick1]

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.

Yes, that post and reference to 80ftlb of energy is for a bow setup. The 6mm diameter is in reference to the approximate diameter of an arrow. And, yes, that is correct - the cutting diameter is generally around an inch, sometimes less, sometimes more. Field points are not recommended or legal. An arrow properly placed in the vitals, elk will die. Bows are different than rifles. And kinetic energy matters little for either one.

That post was simply a reading comprehension check. @dieselchessy passed. Nice work!

These types of threads often devolve into tone-deaf back-and-forth bickering sessions. In less than twenty posts for this particular thread the back and forth of multiple “you” and “I” started.

From observation, once a thread turns the corner and heads down the back and forth bickerings of "can you show me" - "I never said" - "your idea" - "where did I claim" - "you are" - "I didn't say" - "tell me" - "you are wrong" - "if you think" - - - it just turns into a dumpster fire, heading down the ultimate path of being locked. Wonder how many posts that will take for this thread?

Post #4 on this thread had six versions of "you" (your/you're/you) in the post.
Post #29 on this thread had three "you" and one "your" in one sentence. Remarkable!
Post #34 had twenty-four versions of "you" in one post! Outstanding!
-----------

"Arguing by saying 'you'" means using a tactic in an argument where one constantly deflects blame or criticism back onto the other person by saying "you did this" or "you made me feel this way," essentially avoiding taking responsibility for their own actions or perspective, and instead focusing on the other person's perceived faults.
Key points about this argument style:

• Defensive posture:
  It often comes from a defensive mindset where someone feels attacked and immediately counters with accusations against the other person, rather than addressing the issue at hand.
• Shifting blame:
  The core mechanism is to shift the focus of the argument away from oneself and onto the other person, even if it means distorting the situation or taking things out of context.
• Lack of accountability:
  By constantly saying "you" and not acknowledging one's own role in the situation, it can prevent productive conversation and resolution.

Example:

• Situation: "You never listen to me when I try to talk about my problems."
• "You" argument response: "Well, you always interrupt me when I'm trying to explain myself!"

 

[hereinaz]

Yes, that post and reference to 80ftlb of energy is for a bow setup. The 6mm diameter is in reference to the approximate diameter of an arrow. And, yes, that is correct - the cutting diameter is generally around an inch, sometimes less, sometimes more. Field points are not recommended or legal. An arrow properly placed in the vitals, elk will die. Bows are different than rifles. And kinetic energy matters little for either one.

That post was simply a reading comprehension check. @dieselchessy passed. Nice work!

These types of threads often devolve into tone-deaf back-and-forth bickering sessions. In less than twenty posts for this particular thread the back and forth of multiple “you” and “I” started.

From observation, once a thread turns the corner and heads down the back and forth bickerings of "can you show me" - "I never said" - "your idea" - "where did I claim" - "you are" - "I didn't say" - "tell me" - "you are wrong" - "if you think" - - - it just turns into a dumpster fire, heading down the ultimate path of being locked. Wonder how many posts that will take for this thread?

Post #4 on this thread had six versions of "you" (your/you're/you) in the post.
Post #29 on this thread had three "you" and one "your" in one sentence. Remarkable!
Post #34 had twenty-four versions of "you" in one post! Outstanding!
-----------

"Arguing by saying 'you'" means using a tactic in an argument where one constantly deflects blame or criticism back onto the other person by saying "you did this" or "you made me feel this way," essentially avoiding taking responsibility for their own actions or perspective, and instead focusing on the other person's perceived faults.
Key points about this argument style:

• Defensive posture:
  It often comes from a defensive mindset where someone feels attacked and immediately counters with accusations against the other person, rather than addressing the issue at hand.
• Shifting blame:
  The core mechanism is to shift the focus of the argument away from oneself and onto the other person, even if it means distorting the situation or taking things out of context.
• Lack of accountability:
  By constantly saying "you" and not acknowledging one's own role in the situation, it can prevent productive conversation and resolution.

Example:

• Situation: "You never listen to me when I try to talk about my problems."
• "You" argument response: "Well, you always interrupt me when I'm trying to explain myself!"

lol

 

[hereinaz]

You prefer the ELDXs over the NBTs (Silvertips)?

I have seen the ELDx is all. Never have shot the NBT.

 

[HandgunHTR]

So, to bring this back full circle...how would you "energy is useless" folks respond to the claim that it's better to not have a bullet pass through because you don't want to waste energy on the dirt behind the animal, you want a full energy dump in the animal, etc.?

Or...to make this more practical, and less academic...in your experience, does a bullet that remains in the animal incapacitate/kill faster than one that exits. Forget whether it has anything to do with energy or not. Regardless of the cause/why, does a bullet that doesn't exit usually kill better/faster?

In regards to your first question, I would just ignore them because they don’t understand what they are talking about. If you can’t ignore them then the answer is it doesn’t matter if it says in or exits, the real question is what did it do while it was in there.

As for your second question, the answer is, it depends. Sometimes it will kill quicker, sometimes it won’t. Where you put the bullet has much more bearing on that than the energy/velocity/ or whatever other measure you choose to use.

 

[HandgunHTR]

I think this is a better/clearer way to state this rather than just the blanket statement that "energy is irrelevant/meaningless".

If it is not an accurate predictor of how the bullet is going to react or how effective it is going to be at killing the animal, then it is, in fact, irrelevant.

 

[Macintosh]

I also get a laugh when anti-energy folks claim large cartridges with double bullet weight at the same velocity are bad, but shooting animals twice is normal (double the energy imparted into the animal).

When I first showed up it was fun to equate 223 energy at long range to the 22 hornet 400 yards closer. Guys flipped out, said bla, bla, bla, and then it sunk in for some folks how ridiculously anemic this combination is. It’s not the mastodon killer many would like you to believe. A good source of proof most small caliber guys don’t fully buy into it is the sheer number of cartridges larger than 223 that are shot.

I’m also getting a kick out of many of the 223 crowd gravitating to heavy bullets in 6mm, and now 25 caliber rounds. Those who kicked and screamed about energy not making a difference are shooting much more energy, but now it’s ok. *chuckle*

I think youre just egging folks on, as I know these points have been called out many times to you before. This is tilting at windmills. People are not actually saying what is alleged here, or you are misunderstanding their points due to their imprecise language.

As far as Im aware, no one who is speaking precisely on this topic is claiming the larger cartridge is bad. They are saying it’s 1) not NECESSARY and 2) has a consequence in recoil that is not beneficial, and is usually harmful with regard to shooting accurately in the field and in practice. Combined, they feel that when taking all factors into consideration—including but not limited to terminal performance— that makes the smaller cartridge the better choice in many cases. That is not the same as saying the larger cartridge is a bad choice across the board.

Maybe you have, maybe you havent—shoot a super low recoiling gun like a 223 and its amazing how time slows when recoil doesnt knock your field of view completely off an animal. 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? Smaller cartridges with less recoil make a second shot on target more LIKELY because its far easier to stay on the animal for that first few seconds while its often still up; that is not the same as more necessary.

People also gravitate to 6mm, 6.5, .25, 243, etc because 1) some states have caliber restrictions 2) higher-bc bullets have been or are now more readily available in those calibers, 3) getting the same wind performance from a .224 involved wildcat reloading, custom gun, was more reliant on a few specific bullets, etc. 4) nrl power factor. 5) practicing at 1000+ yards. The 22cm, allowing an even heavier and higher-bc bullet, is also attracting many of those same folks who might otherwise have gone for a 6mm. Again, its about the bullet and impact velocity at range and how its affected by wind, combined with the shootability—not the caliber or cartridge.

The 22 hornet example is a red herring that distracts from the actual points made. Trying to make it the equivalent is missing the point, because in order to be a valid comparison its entirely contingent on shooting the same bullets the .223 crowd are talking about—remember the “223 crowd” is saying that its the specific bullet and impact velocity at the range you want to shoot that matters. In this case that’s 75-80+ grain bullets impacting above 1600-1800fps when we’re talking about .224 caliber. Ive never seen a 22 hornet with an 8-twist barrel and loaded with 77gr bullets, have you? If so, at what range does that bullet drop below 1600-1800fps? Is that a useful/adequate range? Because the same crowd IS saying that 223 with 55gr bullets is insufficient in many cases. Show them a 22 hornet that delivers a 75+gr bullet above 1600fps at 400 or 500 yards, and I guarantee you that crowd will start listening.

 

[The Guide]

The energy reading is only giving you the POTENTIAL energy available to do work. It is very dependent upon the bullet design, shot placement, and impact velocity if that POTENTIAL energy will do any work. The work done is subject to the materials impacted and if the bullet remained in the target subject or exited.

Jay

 

[Skydog]

If it is not an accurate predictor of how the bullet is going to react or how effective it is going to be at killing the animal, then it is, in fact, irrelevant.

The energy reading is only giving you the POTENTIAL energy available to do work. It is very dependent upon the bullet design, shot placement, and impact velocity if that POTENTIAL energy will do any work. The work done is subject to the materials impacted and if the bullet remained in the target subject or exited.

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...

 

[eric1115]

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...

No one is claiming that energy is not required to do the work of destroying tissue.

We are claiming that the KE number a projectile has at impact tells us essentially nothing about the characteristics of the wound channels it will produce, so using it as a performance metric is meaningless.

 

[TaperPin]

I think youre just egging folks on,

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

 

[Skydog]

No one is claiming that energy is not required to do the work of destroying tissue.

We are claiming that the KE number a projectile has at impact tells us essentially nothing about the characteristics of the wound channels it will produce, so using it as a performance metric is meaningless.

So...

Energy is not irrelevant/meaningless to bullet performance and the work of destroying tissue.

Energy is irrelevant/meaningless as a metric for predicting bullet performance and tissue damage.

So...to just make the blanket over-statement that "energy is irrelevant/meaningless" without the qualifier of "for predicting bullet performance" is incorrect, misleading, etc. It is only irrelevant within the context of conversations about predicting bullet effectiveness, which is a very narrow/specific context.

I think making the blanket statement without the qualifier is where some folks (including me) get confused. And, as I stated before, using the overstatement that "energy is irrelevant" is not at all necessary for making the case for the effectiveness of small calibers.

But now I understand what you guys really mean when you say, "energy is irrelevant".

So, it's all good.

Thanks all!

 

[Wrench]

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...

Energy is a terrible metric for bullet performance. No animal has ever flipped off the hunter after catching a bullet and telling them they needed 12 more foot pounds.

Every bullet has different characteristics for upset. Every target has different ways it influences upset.

Pick the bullet that works in your velocity window and has the characteristics that work for your desired effect. It's that easy.

Ps, 90% of guys who shoot a super high bc bullet will never use it to It's potential....and most would have been fine with a much cheaper flat based bullet.

 

[The Guide]

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 calculations will give you the potential energy available to do work but not the work the energy will do. That energy is meaningless to ballistics. Once the bullet makes impact, has sufficient velocity to provide upset (too low of velocity there is no upset and acts like a FMJ or an arrow with a field point), and begins to upset then and only then does it impart any energy. That energy inputs damage based on how the bullet upsets. Does it fragment and expand violently causing radial shrapnel dispersion? Does it tumble and spiral like a buzz saw? Does it mushroom and drive through the animal making a 1.5 caliber hole in a straight line and exit?

The application of energy is different for every bullet style. The wound from a bullet that has 250# of energy at impact could far exceed that of a bullet that has 1000# of energy at impact just based on bullet style and impact location. Energy is not a calculated metric that consistently correlates to damage produced on impact. It only shows a possible potential to do work when a bullet impacts and has enough velocity to upset.

Jay

 

[TaperPin]

Show me the post you had people flipping out over 22 hornet velocities. Sounds fun to read through.

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