Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[Skydog]

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.

I was going off the statement that "the bigger one will make a bigger wound. The question is whether the difference has any benefit?"

Is "the bigger one will make a bigger wound" a true statement or not?

If not, then correct the person who said it.

That was a response to this question:

"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?"

Implication of the answer I was given is...The bigger one (1800 ft-lbs) will make a bigger wound per a prior post in this thread...right or wrong? Again, if that is wrong...why not respond to the post and correct it? I was simply assuming what he said was valid and responding to it.

It's irrelevant, but it's not (depends on the context)...energy is meaningless, but more energy makes bigger holes...energy doesn't matter, but you want a full energy dump and no wasted energy...you guys talk out of both sides of your mouth and make inconsistent statements (per the intent of the OP). It's no wonder these threads turn out the way they do.

You said "The end. No more". So, I guess that settles it. I'm good with that. I have all the answers to my questions now. Thank you.

 

[Skydog]

300ft-lbs can create horrific wounds, 10,000 ft-lbs can create tiny wounds.

True. No argument from me on this. But what does it have to do with the post you responded to?

The claim had been made by another poster that all other things being equal/similar, a bullet with more energy will make a bigger hole. That was the context of what was being discussed. And apparently, understanding context is critical to these discussions...

 

[hereinaz]

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.

My bad. I used a shorthand. I was referencing the “you need 1,000 minimum foot pounds to ethically kill deer” threshold.

I think it does disprove that position. And, if the minimum jumps from 1000 to 300, then it shows how imprecise the “energy” measurement is.

 

[Formidilosus]

...you guys talk out of both sides of your mouth and make inconsistent statements (per the intent of the OP). It's no wonder these threads turn out the way they do.

Who is “you guys”? It certainly isn’t me. If you had read the threads you claim, you would know that. They are filled with links to medical and terminal ballistics papers that address every question that you have “asked”.

So you either didn’t read them, lack the ability to understand or comprehend, or you are trolling.

 

[Formidilosus]

True. No argument from me on this. But what does it have to do with the post you responded to?

The claim had been made by another poster that all other things being equal/similar, a bullet with more energy will make a bigger hole. That was the context of what was being discussed. And apparently, understanding context is critical to these discussions...

There are all kinds of things that are posted that are functionally and factually wrong- you want me to address every one of them? I addressed you because you are the OP and keep saying “I now understand”, and then two posts later write things that show that you do not.

 

[Tmac]

You prefer the ELDXs over the NBTs (Silvertips)?

Either should work well for broadside shots. Iirc the eld-x may be a tad softer, but I may be wrong. Pick one and set your max range accordingly.

 

[Macintosh]

@Skydog you said this:

The claim had been made by another poster that all other things being equal/similar, a bullet with more energy will make a bigger hole. That was the context of what was being discussed. And apparently, understanding context is critical to these discussions...

the important part of what i said is the all other things part. The actual words I used were:

given similar velocity and same bullet construction, the bigger one will make a bigger wound.

What I said was that GIVEN THE SAME BULLET TYPE, and GIVEN THE SAME VELOCITY, the larger bullet will likely make a bigger wound. Ie a 6mm 108gr eldm at 2000fps will most likely make a smaller wound than a .308 225gr eldm at 2000fps.

The same bullet construction at the same velocity is applying its energy similarly…in this case more total energy APPLIED THE SAME WAY makes a bigger hole.

At the same time, put a mono in that 300 win mag, and at 2000fps the 108gr 6mm bullet might very well make a bigger wound, even though it has far less “energy”. More energy APPLIED DIFFERENTLY makes a different hole, in this case maybe deeper but almost certainly much narrower. There is no inconsistency in this.

 

[Formidilosus]

You are missing the important part of what i said. I was not entirely clear what you were asking, so I gave you two different answers in the same post. What I said was that GIVEN THE SAME BULLET TYPE, and GIVEN THE SAME VELOCITY, the larger bullet will likely make a bigger wound. Ie a 6mm 108gr eldm at 2000fps will most likely make a smaller wound than a .308 225gr eldm at 2000fps.

At the same time, put a mono in that 300 win mag, and the 108gr 6mm bullet might very well make a bigger wound.

Wrong person quoted.

 

[hereinaz]

If you know velocity, weight, and bullet construction it is possible to have a complete discussion about a bullet’s terminal performance, so “energy” is unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion.

To paraphrase Form, that’s the end of it. We don’t need a discussion about energy.

Now, some people try to address questions about energy to clear confusion, including me. It is still unnecessary or irrelevant to determine wound damage.

Thought experiment, if I gave someone the energy and bullet construction, they couldn’t reach any conclusion because they don’t know the velocity and whether the bullet will open or “pencil through”.

If I gave you mass and energy, you could have the conversation but only after solving for velocity, which includes complex math outside of what normal people do in their heads.

Pretty much any discussion about energy dump etc are all secondary/unnecessary to the first principle.

 

[Skydog]

Who is “you guys”? It certainly isn’t me. If you had read the threads you claim, you would know that. They are filled with links to medical and terminal ballistics papers that address every question that you have “asked”.

So you either didn’t read them, lack the ability to understand or comprehend, or you are trolling.

"You guys" are the folks posting responses on this and other threads who seem to be representing the small caliber camp. I wasn't specifically referring to you.

I have never read or heard you being inconsistent. In fact, just the opposite. I find your logic, data, evidence, arguments for small calibers totally compelling. And I have stated this more than once. Those 3 podcasts (I posted them in another thread) you did caused a paradigm shift in the way I think about cartridges, calibers, bullet effectiveness, what kills animals, etc. So, I have a great deal of respect for you and your work. Have I read every thread or paper? No. But I have read a lot of them. The amount of content - even within a single thread - can take hours/days to get through. I'm working on it.

I regret that you think I am "asking" with dubious intentions, or that I am unintelligent, or trolling. But that's the disadvantage of doing this on an internet forum as total strangers. If we were face to face chatting about this over a steak and a glass of Buffalo Trace it would be a lot different.

I am here to learn. But asking questions for clarification and sometimes even challenging what I'm being taught is how I learn.

 

[Skydog]

There are all kinds of things that are posted that are functionally and factually wrong- you want me to address every one of them? I addressed you because you are the OP and keep saying “I now understand”, and then two posts later write things that show that you do not.

No, I don't expect you to address every post. But I do think it's reasonable for you to address the direct quoted post within my post, which my post was a response to. My whole post was premised on the quoted claim that more energy makes bigger holes. That was the context. You ignored that and just posted some irrelevant/random comment that added nothing to what was being discussed.

How would you answer this question:

"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?"

I was told that the bigger one (1800 ft-lbs) would make a bigger hole....true or false?

Now, I totally get that the bigger hole may be irrelevant. Dead is dead, "more dead" is not a thing, diminishing returns, etc... I get all that. I agree 100% with that. But that's a different question/discussion.

 

[Bluefish]

My bad. I used a shorthand. I was referencing the “you need 1,000 minimum foot pounds to ethically kill deer” threshold.

I think it does disprove that position. And, if the minimum jumps from 1000 to 300, then it shows how imprecise the “energy” measurement is.

I agree that the current 1k ftlb minimum is much too high. I have taken two deer with less than that and had some of the quickest time to incapacitation both times. With the right bullet it might be 200-300 ftlbs for a minimum.

 

[Skydog]

What I said was that GIVEN THE SAME BULLET TYPE, and GIVEN THE SAME VELOCITY, the larger bullet will likely make a bigger wound. Ie a 6mm 108gr eldm at 2000fps will most likely make a smaller wound than a .308 225gr eldm at 2000fps.

OK...so, we have established that a larger bullet will likely make a larger wound.

Now, we need to ask the question: Are there scenarios where a larger wound (more trauma, tissue destruction, etc.) might be more lethal (e.g. faster incapacitation, etc.) than a smaller wound? Are there scenarios (even if not frequent) where there is a benefit or advantage to a making a bigger hole?

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, then it is not unreasonable for folks to opt for the larger caliber. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Formidilosus]

No, I don't expect you to address every post. But I do think it's reasonable for you to address the direct quoted post within my post, which my post was a response to. My whole post was premised on the quoted claim that more energy makes bigger holes. That was the context. You ignored that and just posted some irrelevant/random comment that added nothing to what was being discussed.

I didn’t ignore anything. I addressed the person that asked questions.

How would you answer this question:

"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?"

I already do, however- the only thing “potential energy” can do is “potentially” effect the actual wound channel- there is no secondary magic. Once the wound is created, it does not matter in any what shape or form that created it- the actual true wound is there in front of you. So yes- if two woundS are identical in measurement, then it does not matter what caliber caused them or, how much “potential” the bullet had. The actual is already known.

And no- there is no mathematical equation that will tell you how much damage a bullet will cause without actually shooting it into tissue or properly calibrated tissue simulate. Once you have the 3d wound- that’s it.

I was told that the bigger one (1800 ft-lbs) would make a bigger hole....true or false?

No. Ft-lbs of energy does not tell you a single thing about what a wound will look like. In this context- it is a useless metric.

 

[Formidilosus]

OK...so, we have established that a larger bullet will likely make a larger wound.

No. This right here is where your critical thinking is failing you- there are way more large caliber bullets that cause smaller wounds than lots of small caliber bullets do. So no, it is not “likely”; it is “possible”.

Now, we need to ask the question: Are there scenarios where a larger wound (more trauma, tissue destruction, etc.) might be more lethal (e.g. faster incapacitation, etc.) than a smaller wound? Are there scenarios (even if not frequent) where there is a benefit or advantage to a making a bigger hole?

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, then it is not unreasonable for folks to opt for the larger caliber. That's all I'm saying.

Of course a 180gr bullet can he be engineered to destroy more tissue than a 60gr bullet all else being equal. However no one wants a “maximized 180gr 30cal. So they artificially reduce the tissue damage. A .224 maximized is already causing more tissue destruction than the vast, vast majority want.

 

[Skydog]

So no, it is not “likely”; it is “possible”.

OK...fair enough...all I'm saying is...

Assuming someone does not care about recoil, it's not unreasonable for that person to opt for something that will "possibly" make a larger wound channel.

So, I guess at the end of the day it really boils down to...does a larger wound channel ever have any benefit?

If the answer is "yes", then it's perfectly reasonable to opt for the cartridge/bullet that "possibly" makes a larger wound channel since it might give one an advantage in some scenarios.

People make decisions every day based on the "possible" advantage of one choice over another even if that advantage never comes into play. They hedge their bets.

So, I can see both sides of the argument.

I appreciate your time in addressing my questions. Apologies for making your head spin.

 

[Macintosh]

Are there scenarios where a bigger wound is desireable? Sure. Some people clearly think so. Personally, I shoot monos specifically because I want a SMALLER wound. And if you look at photos on all these kill threads you’ll see that larger cartridges using the same bullets that the “223 crowd” use, create these massive wound channels that absolutely destroy game—some people may want that, but I think a good many people find it excessive. I used to shoot ballistic tips and sst’s from a 3006. That was WAY too much damage, would routinely waste a good
portion of an entire haunch if I hit the off-side shoulder on a quartering shot. My monos from a 3006 or 270 create less damaged meat than the sst’s from a 7mm08 or 6.5cm, even that is more than I want.

Also, while I would not say its unreasonable for people to err on the side of a slightly larger wound, there is more involved in picking a cartridge than only terminal effect. Once you achieve “plenty dead”, those other criteria may become higher priorities.

 

[hereinaz]

Are there scenarios where a bigger wound is desireable? Sure. Some people clearly think so. Personally, I shoot monos specifically because I want a SMALLER wound. And if you look at photos on all these kill threads you’ll see that larger cartridges using the same bullets that the “223 crowd” use, create these massive wound channels that absolutely destroy game—some people may want that, but I think a good many people find it excessive. I used to shoot ballistic tips and sst’s from a 3006. That was WAY too much damage, would routinely waste a good
portion of an entire haunch if I hit the off-side shoulder on a quartering shot. My monos from a 3006 or 270 create less damaged meat than the sst’s from a 7mm08 or 6.5cm, even that is more than I want.

Also, while I would not say its unreasonable for people to err on the side of a slightly larger wound, there is more involved in picking a cartridge than only terminal effect. Once you achieve “plenty dead”, those other criteria may become higher priorities.

100% choose the bullet you like. There are good reasons to choose all sorts of things. I have gone smaller for the same reason but stayed with Bergers for long range possibilities. They are still very destructive.

 

[Murder Mittens]

Fascinating Subject! This is the answer to whether energy is relevant or not…

“It is all relevant and yet none of it is”

Killing is the easy part! Choose whatever you want to and get rid of the confirmation bias/emotion in your decision making. Use a rock, power drill, M67, .950 jdj or whatever floats your boat. Just do you boo and learn your capabilities/your groups capabilities with said platforms you choose to carry afield.

 

[Lou270]

Thank you. I actually just finished reading it and it was helpful. But...two responses to the article:

1) Spomer says: "The quantity of energy in a bullet sent toward your game is the same as the energy sent back into the rifle — and your shoulder behind that rifle. So, if the energy in the recoiling rifle didn’t instantly kill you, how can the energy in the bullet instantly kill your target animal of the same or larger size? You absorbed all that energy. Why aren’t you dead?" ...This is false/misleading. The recoil energy of a .243 against my shoulder is only 10 ft-lbs. The energy of the 95 gr NBT at an impact of 100 yards is 1700 ft-lbs (or 340 ft-lbs if we assume that only 25% gets transferred to the animal, and there's no valid reason to assume that it is only 25%). My shoulder is not absorbing 340 -1700 ft-lbs of energy, it's only absorbing 10 ft-lbs. However, the deer is absorbing 340-1700 ft-lbs of energy. That's a huge difference...right?

2) Even the article concedes that energy matters, even if it only matters a little.

A couple of quotes from the article...

"The bullet stayed inside, too, so the little coyote absorbed all that killing-energy."

"Honestly, bullet energy matters. A little. Our problem is conceptual."

I haven't claimed any more than this. I've never said energy alone matters, or energy matters a lot more than velocity, etc. I've simply questioned the accuracy of the claim that energy is irrelevant. And I'm not sure why that claim has to be so zealously defended. And I don't see how the case for small calibers rises or falls on defending that claim.

Spomer is confusing momentum. Bullets have very little mass so they have very little momentum. That is why they don’t plow the deer or you over

A bullets energy causes damage by generating very high pressures (10 of thousands psi) in a very small area. This why bullets and tissues deform. More energy allows for more work ie higher peak pressures and pressures applied deeper during penetration (force = pressure x area). Velocity, bullet constuction, mass, etc affect how deployed. Not black and white. Use what you like. Just the old energy dont matter cause a bullet won’t move 2000lbs 1 ft rationale is ignorant

Lou