Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[KHntr]

OK Form and others on this new thinking. Awhile back, I posted an article on cartridge "insurance." NOT saying we can get sloppy with bullet placement but let's say our bullet placement or bullet itself wasn't exactly textbook. It's here where I personally draw the line on matters of cartridge and bullets. Animals move at the trigger pull and many offer us shots other than broadside. When hunting, it NEVER hurts to have some insurance when that trigger is pulled because we OWE that animal a clean kill.

How low can we go on the cartridge / bullet list and still maintain that insurance?? Many are saying the various 6mm's are plenty for BG hunting. Smaller cartridges as well. Me? Wish I could, but I just can't get there.

In spite of what you read above - I'm NOT closed to learning about new & improved. We all agree...we don't "need" a 300 Win to kill a deer. I'm looking at my current rifle / cartridge inventory (No magnums of any kind) - for Coyotes to Elk / Moose and when each rifle is matched to the game animal, the cartridge and bullet carry a bit of insurance for Ethics and peace of mind.

It seems, to me anyway, many of us differ on where that "insurance" minimum line might be.

Just my $.02 worth.

I hear you there. I used to be a mono pushed FAST from an Ultra Mag guy, just in case.

Now, in the event of something going wrong, I want a softer bullet with a wider damage path to increase the chances of hitting something vital around the edges, instead of maybe center punching something vital, feet later.

 

[HandgunHTR]

OK Form and others on this new thinking. Awhile back, I posted an article on cartridge "insurance." NOT saying we can get sloppy with bullet placement but let's say our bullet placement or bullet itself wasn't exactly textbook. It's here where I personally draw the line on matters of cartridge and bullets. Animals move at the trigger pull and many offer us shots other than broadside. When hunting, it NEVER hurts to have some insurance when that trigger is pulled because we OWE that animal a clean kill.

How low can we go on the cartridge / bullet list and still maintain that insurance?? Many are saying the various 6mm's are plenty for BG hunting. Smaller cartridges as well. Me? Wish I could, but I just can't get there.

In spite of what you read above - I'm NOT closed to learning about new & improved. We all agree...we don't "need" a 300 Win to kill a deer. I'm looking at my current rifle / cartridge inventory (No magnums of any kind) - for Coyotes to Elk / Moose and when each rifle is matched to the game animal, the cartridge and bullet carry a bit of insurance for Ethics and peace of mind.

It seems, to me anyway, many of us differ on where that "insurance" minimum line might be.

Just my $.02 worth.

Check out this post: https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/smaller-calibers-where-why-to-draw-the-line.399663/post-4095226

In it you can see the wound channel from a .22 caliber 77 grain TMK shot from a 14.5" barreled 223 and a .30 caliber 175 grain TMK shot from a 20" barreled 308. How much "insurance" did the 30-caliber bullet give?

The most important variable when shooting animals, whether it be with a gun or a bow, is shot placement. I will take the "insurance" of being able to place the bullet where I want it with more consistent accuracy over having a wound channel that is 1" wider and 2" deeper.

 

[D Lee]

I agree with you 100.00% right up until the animal moves at the trigger pull; the wind moves the bullet considerably off line; we accidentally "pull" the shot. Variables we all have to deal with, like it or not, successfully or unsuccessfully. I can't explain all the ballistics - external & terminal - like Form & others are doing and very well I might add. NOT saying we need a 50 cal to kill a deer. From this Fudd's point of view, I want a little insurance when make/model/size bullet meets animal. YMMV

 

[HuntHarder]

Check out this post: https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/smaller-calibers-where-why-to-draw-the-line.399663/post-4095226

In it you can see the wound channel from a .22 caliber 77 grain TMK shot from a 14.5" barreled 223 and a .30 caliber 175 grain TMK shot from a 20" barreled 308. How much "insurance" did the 30-caliber bullet give?

The most important variable when shooting animals, whether it be with a gun or a bow, is shot placement. I will take the "insurance" of being able to place the bullet where I want it with more consistent accuracy over having a wound channel that is 1" wider and 2" deeper.

That .308 175 gr wound looks vastly larger than the 77 gr wound. Both will kill, but saying those wounds are the same is disingenuous.

 

[eric1115]

I agree with you 100.00% right up until the animal moves at the trigger pull; the wind moves the bullet considerably off line; we accidentally "pull" the shot. Variables we all have to deal with, like it or not, successfully or unsuccessfully. I can't explain all the ballistics - external & terminal - like Form & others are doing and very well I might add. NOT saying we need a 50 cal to kill a deer. From this Fudd's point of view, I want a little insurance when make/model/size bullet meets animal. YMMV

Honest question for you, have you ever hunted with a rifle that allows you to see the location of your impact on the animal?

I didn't really appreciate it until I started shooting a suppressed, low recoiling rifle. The instant picture of what went wrong and the ability to quickly correct it and put another one where it ought to go has to be experienced to really understand it.

I would 100% prefer a rifle with which I can see where the bullet hits and get a whole second wound channel on the way Right Now, vs hoping that "insurance" of an extra inch (or even two) on the radius of the wound channel is enough to turn a marginal hit into a lethal one.

 

[HandgunHTR]

That .308 175 gr wound looks vastly larger than the 77 gr wound. Both will kill, but saying those wounds are the same is disingenuous.

Nobody said they were the same. I simply asked how much "insurance" the bullet that was 36% larger in diameter and 127% heavier gives you.

I agree with you 100.00% right up until the animal moves at the trigger pull; the wind moves the bullet considerably off line; we accidentally "pull" the shot. Variables we all have to deal with, like it or not, successfully or unsuccessfully. I can't explain all the ballistics - external & terminal - like Form & others are doing and very well I might add. NOT saying we need a 50 cal to kill a deer. From this Fudd's point of view, I want a little insurance when make/model/size bullet meets animal. YMMV

Again, I ask. If you pull the shot into the guts, will the 175 grain bullet from the 308 kill the deer/elk/whatever any better than the 77 grain bullet?
A gut shot is a gut shot. I have had many more rodeos with poorly hit animals when the shooter is using a large cartridge than I ever have with those shooting smaller cartridges.

You are correct. Crap happens. If the animal takes a step at the shot, being able to track the shot in and know exactly where the hit was is a huge advantage as it gives you immediate feedback. You know right away you need to put another one into the animal and you are in a much better position to do that. With a heavy recoiling rifle, you don't get either of those. That, to me, is also much better "insurance" than having a wound channel that is 10%-15% bigger.

 

[D Lee]

Handgun - you said:

"Again, I ask. If you pull the shot into the guts, will the 175 grain bullet from the 308 kill the deer/elk/whatever any better than the 77 grain bullet?"
NO, it damn sure won't.

"A gut shot is a gut shot. I have had many more rodeos with poorly hit animals when the shooter is using a large cartridge than I ever have with those shooting smaller cartridges."
We're agreeing with you on this. Rodeos can be avoided with good shot placement.

Please read my "insurance" quotes again. IF - for ANY reason - the shot does not go as planned - a little (or a lot) more energy / destruction inside the animal can only help matters. That's all I'm saying.

Thanks for your feedback.

 

[HuntHarder]

Nobody said they were the same. I simply asked how much "insurance" the bullet that was 36% larger in diameter and 127% heavier gives you.



Again, I ask. If you pull the shot into the guts, will the 175 grain bullet from the 308 kill the deer/elk/whatever any better than the 77 grain bullet?
A gut shot is a gut shot. I have had many more rodeos with poorly hit animals when the shooter is using a large cartridge than I ever have with those shooting smaller cartridges.

You are correct. Crap happens. If the animal takes a step at the shot, being able to track the shot in and know exactly where the hit was is a huge advantage as it gives you immediate feedback. You know right away you need to put another one into the animal and you are in a much better position to do that. With a heavy recoiling rifle, you don't get either of those. That, to me, is also much better "insurance" than having a wound channel that is 10%-15% bigger.

You and I buy different "insurance."

 

[Pickettpuncher]

Handgun - you said:

"Again, I ask. If you pull the shot into the guts, will the 175 grain bullet from the 308 kill the deer/elk/whatever any better than the 77 grain bullet?"
NO, it damn sure won't.

"A gut shot is a gut shot. I have had many more rodeos with poorly hit animals when the shooter is using a large cartridge than I ever have with those shooting smaller cartridges."
We're agreeing with you on this. Rodeos can be avoided with good shot placement.

Please read my "insurance" quotes again. IF - for ANY reason - the shot does not go as planned - a little (or a lot) more energy / destruction inside the animal can only help matters. That's all I'm saying.

Thanks for your feedback.

There is no insurance tho. A bad shot is still a bad shot, period. My muzzleloader produces around 3900ft lbs of energy at the muzzle. I gut shot a deer a few years ago with it. You know how much it helped me, not a bit. A bad shot with a ton of “energy” didn’t equate to squat. As much as anyone would like to think it helps, there’s no direct correlation between energy, insurance, killing ability, or anything else you might wanna call it.

 

[D Lee]

"A bad shot is still a bad shot, period."

One more time............AGREED.

An unintentional "marginal" bullet placement? A bit more energy / internal destruction can only help. Some shots are not perfect but close. That's when the insurance I'm referring to helps.

Your feedback is correct & appreciated.

 

[Macintosh]

"A bad shot is still a bad shot, period."

One more time............AGREED.

An unintentional "marginal" bullet placement? A bit more energy / internal destruction can only help. Some shots are not perfect but close. That's when the insurance I'm referring to helps.

Your feedback is correct & appreciated.

Sure, the bigger bullet makes a bigger hole IF similar bullets are used (if you choose a hard bullet the “insurance factor” may very well favor the smaller bullet). In the above pictured example the 1” wider wound channel gives you an error margin of 1/2”. So sure, the bigger/same type bullet gives you an extra 1/2” inch you can miss by and still achieve a similar result. That isnt the point. Your point isnt wrong, its just only one part of the picture until you can prove at least to yourself that the 1/2” of error margin isnt more than offset by another factor such as recoil. Have you objectively tested this? If not I think the only insurance youre getting is just imaginary.

 

[KHntr]

"A bad shot is still a bad shot, period."

One more time............AGREED.

An unintentional "marginal" bullet placement? A bit more energy / internal destruction can only help. Some shots are not perfect but close. That's when the insurance I'm referring to helps.

Your feedback is correct & appreciated.

The part that you are possibly discounting though, is that it isn’t caliber that makes insurance, it’s bullet choice.

 

[Pickettpuncher]

"A bad shot is still a bad shot, period."

One more time............AGREED.

An unintentional "marginal" bullet placement? A bit more energy / internal destruction can only help. Some shots are not perfect but close. That's when the insurance I'm referring to helps.

Your feedback is correct & appreciated.

While your marginal shot may be unintentional, it’s still a bad shot. I used to have the same mentality that you’re trying to portray. Nothing trumps a bad shot. Huge energy numbers do not compute to insurance as you’re trying to claim. There’s other variables that are more important that actually matter. Like how a bullet is designed to perform.

 

[cbeard64]

This small caliber fad has definitely reached cult level at this point.
.223? .243? .263? .284?
Doesn’t matter - they’re all the same from a lethality standpoint. So use the smallest one and reduce your recoil and gain accuracy.
Win, win, win!!!

Just goes to show folks can be convinced of anything.

Then those folks will come on and say they are not saying that, and then 2 posts later start saying it again.

Again, cult level.

 

[Rich M]

This is always interesting to check in and see where we are at.

Shoot what you are comfy with.

Is that difficult?

 

[eric1115]

This small caliber fad has definitely reached cult level at this point.
.223? .243? .263? .284?
Doesn’t matter - they’re all the same from a lethality standpoint. So use the smallest one and reduce your recoil and gain accuracy.
Win, win, win!!!

Just goes to show folks can be convinced of anything.

Then those folks will come on and say they are not saying that, and then 2 posts later start saying it again.

Again, cult level.

Is that what you genuinely think we cult members are saying? Or are you trolling a bit, misrepresenting the argument on purpose for a bit of fun?

A flyswatter, a framing hammer, and a sledgehammer all will kill a fly dead. Sledgehammer does more damage than a flyswatter. Does that make it a better fly killing tool?

Similarly, a good .223 bullet or 6mm bullet produces an unquestionably lethal wound channel if it impacts at an appropriate speed. A 7mm of similar construction may make a larger wound channel, but to what end? More is not always better.

 

[cbeard64]

Is that what you genuinely think we cult members are saying? Or are you trolling a bit, misrepresenting the argument on purpose for a bit of fun?

A flyswatter, a framing hammer, and a sledgehammer all will kill a fly dead. Sledgehammer does more damage than a flyswatter. Does that make it a better fly killing tool?

Similarly, a good .223 bullet or 6mm bullet produces an unquestionably lethal wound channel if it impacts at an appropriate speed. A 7mm of similar construction may make a larger wound channel, but to what end? More is not always better.

I said cult members say they’re all the same from a lethality standpoint.

Your post says:
1)I’m a troll because we’re not saying that at all;
2)Then you spend the next two paragraphs saying exactly that two different ways.

Your reply literally proves my point.

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

 

[whoami-72]

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

 

[KHntr]

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

Sure glad moose can’t read, otherwise the last of this one would probably reassemble himself in the freezer and crawl out.

Gotta say though, my stalking skills were on POINT that day, when I snuck up and put the muzzle of that 223AI right against his forehead to stun him so I could cut his throat before he shook it off.

 

[eric1115]

I said cult members say they’re all the same from a lethality standpoint.

Your post says:
1)I’m a troll because we’re not saying that at all;
2)Then you spend the next two paragraphs saying exactly that two different ways.

Your reply literally proves my point.

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

What part of the argument do you disagree with though? What attribute of the wound channel of one of those good small bullets makes them "too small for the task"?

Do you think a sledgehammer is a more lethal fly killing tool than a flyswatter because it produces more damage?

That is the point we're making that you're still missing (or getting but not engaging with), that excess tissue damage does not automatically mean more lethal (or more desirable). You present it as a contradiction that we acknowledge more damage is possible but that small bullets can be equally lethal. If a bullet makes a smaller than desired wound channel, then more is better, but I haven't seen you address it in that way.

What does your ideal wound channel look like? Is there such thing as too much in your mind?