Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[Billogna]

My last post on this thread. You're welcome.

Those of you posting on "the new approach to all this" may in fact be right. Some good evidence that you are.

What's disturbing is your reluctance to accept what "we doubters" have seen / been taught / believe over many decades of reloading and hunting with a long list of cartridges. We post our doubts not so much to disagree with you but to compare / examine / evaluate / process what you are saying. A bit more latitude on your part in your responses would lead to more productive, more enlightening discussions where we might end up seeing your good points.

The knowledge and experiences expressed in this thread are all appreciated. I, for one, share the same passion you have for creating the very best approach to this eminently worthwhile subject.

Cheers!!

The history and effectiveness of "traditional" big game cartridges is vastly and well documented. Their efficacy on big game was never discounted by anyone in the small caliber camp. Unfortunately it keeps being interpreted that way. The problem is that too many hunters associate their "man hood and "hunting ethics" with larger case sizes. They simply can't check their ego at the door and choose to remain willfully ignorant and continue to deny a mountain of evidence right in front of them. There are none so blind as he who will not see.

 

[Bugger]

Agree with Billogna above.
Logic stapled to a carbon-back receipt is just asking for scrutiny. Lots of folks out there will readily admit that big fast cartridges were developed to make up for the handicap of not having laser rangefinders and generally inconsistent rifle/scope combos of the day for shooting beyond a couple hundred yards. Foot pounds of energy was a birth child of that generation to give people warm fuzzies about what they weren’t seeing downrange. Every single human is a better shot with today’s technology than what was available 30 years ago. Taking away the handicap allows you to take away the crutch… it’s that simple.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

We’re gonna get a little bloody going through the wall. Just how it is. There really isn’t a whole lot left to say. Now it’s digest time and maybe next thread we get a little further again. Maybe industry gets involved and puts a team on it. That’s the hope. We’re stuck right about here until then. I do think some progress was made so I vote this was a win for the team.

 

[FredH]

Just to be clear...I'm not arguing for more energy or defending the concept of "knockdown power". I am fully convinced of the ability of small fragmenting bullets to kill large game. The evidence put forth on this site cannot be disputed. I plan to go forth this fall with a .243 Win 95 grain NBT or 90 grain ELD-X, and I fully expect it to do the job. I'm just trying to work through a few lingering questions, things that don't quite make sense yet, etc...

Again, not looking to debate...just seeking clarity.

Thanks all for the responses!

KE, Kinetic energy is just a calculation that uses mass and velocity to come up with a number that can be compared among different cartridges. Roughly defined the calculation is a measure of the possible damage/work a particular combination of velocity and mass can provide. Forget trying to explain this simple concept to this forum.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

KE, Kinetic energy is just a calculation that uses mass and velocity to come up with a number that can be compared among different cartridges. Roughly defined the calculation is a measure of the possible damage/work a particular combination of velocity and mass can provide. Forget trying to explain this simple concept to this forum.

You either don't understand the argument or are intentionally misrepresenting it.

 

[FredH]

You either don't understand the argument or are intentionally misrepresenting it.

The argument has two sides. Those that refuse to see that the calculation of KE has merit and those that do not. I see the calculation as useful.

 

[Pickettpuncher]

The argument has two sides. Those that refuse to see that the calculation of KE has merit and those that do not. I see the calculation as useful.

Since you find it useful, please explain how it translates to anything actually useful in the field. Since there’s bullets for nearly every need, whether it’s for rapid expansion or deep penetration, how is the number useful, and if it is, equal.

 

[WTFJohn]

The argument has two sides. Those that refuse to see that the calculation of KE has merit and those that do not. I see the calculation as useful.

Describe the KE in the pictures below, and how that number (regardless of other variable like bullet type) will impact the outcome. Bonus points if you can deduct caliber without going to look for the source. For reference again, that last picture is the famous quartering away shot on an elk.

Or you could address this in the thread you started that you abandoned.

F

Thread 'Fragmenting bullets versus controlled expanding bullets'

Jan 18, 2025

So it seems "fragmenting" is a good thing and little is said about controlled expansion in hunting bullets here. I can see a fragmenting bullet having an edge when the bullet is of small diameter and 2x expansion would only mean .44 and you only have less than 80 grains of bullet to start with. The term controlled expanding and "hard bullets" is misleading as most bullets are designed to expand quickly but hold onto a percentage of weight. That is the controlled part. Leaving Mono bullets out of this argument it appears bullets that fragment to a great degree are going to throw lead...

• FredH
• Replies: 74
• Forum: Firearms

• 

 

[Thegman]

The argument has two sides. Those that refuse to see that the calculation of KE has merit and those that do not. I see the calculation as useful.

Two specific examples: One bear I shot with a bullet with ~690 ft-lbs of KE at impact, another with a bullet with ~2,640 ft-lbs of KE at impact. Are you able to use that calculation to predict the results of those broadside hits?

Absolutely, KE allowed both to take place, so it's relevant in that respect, but how would you use it as a predictor of outcome?

 

[FredH]

Since you find it useful, please explain how it translates to anything actually useful in the field. Since there’s bullets for nearly every need, whether it’s for rapid expansion or deep penetration, how is the number useful, and if it is, equal.

Denying the relevance of energy also denies the relevance of mass.

 

[Pickettpuncher]

Denying the relevance of energy also denies the relevance of mass.

mass of the bullet, or the animal. I’m also waiting on you to explain how the energy translates to anything useful.

 

[KHntr]

I feel like the horse is standing at the edge of the river right now, but he just won’t take a sip…

 

[eric1115]

The argument has two sides. Those that refuse to see that the calculation of KE has merit and those that do not. I see the calculation as useful.

What is its usefulness to you? By the time you have enough other pieces of information (bullet construction and mass/speed) to do something with it, you already have much more specific information on what the wound characteristics will be.

 

[FredH]

mass of the bullet, or the animal. I’m also waiting on you to explain how the energy translates to anything useful.

Of the projectile. Energy is a calculation involving mass and velocity. Pick a specific velocity and varying the mass will either either raise or lower the calculated energy. KE is a calculation which makes an effort to measure the work a projectile can do. for instance a 20 grain bullet and a 200 grain bullet of the same diameter and velocity are capable of vastly different things. Using 2000 fps as a baseline the 20 grain bullet would be less capable than the 200 grain bullet assuming similar construction. What KE attempts to calculate.

 

[Pickettpuncher]

Of the projectile. Energy is a calculation involving mass and velocity. Pick a specific velocity and varying the mass will either either raise or lower the calculated energy. KE is a calculation which makes an effort to measure the work a projectile can do. for instance a 20 grain bullet and a 200 grain bullet of the same diameter and velocity are capable of vastly different things. Using 2000 fps as a baseline the 20 grain bullet would be less capable than the 200 grain bullet assuming similar construction. What KE attempts to calculate.

But how does that translate to useful info. Demonstrate for the group the difference between 1550ft lbs and 2500ft lbs. Show us the difference since you claim they’re relevant. You can’t. Because that’s not what’s shown in actual field studies. You can take 2 bullets, one with a much smaller “energy” number and cause much more tissue damage based on how it’s designed to expand. You’d also be able to show much clearer differences between 3500ft lbs and 1000, and everything in between.

 

[FredH]

But how does that translate to useful info. Demonstrate for the group the difference between 1550ft lbs and 2500ft lbs. Show us the difference since you claim they’re relevant. You can’t. Because that’s not what’s shown in actual field studies. You can take 2 bullets, one with a much smaller “energy” number and cause much more tissue damage based on how it’s designed to expand. You’d also be able to show much clearer differences between 3500ft lbs and 1000, and everything in between.

I often wonder if there is a disconnect with reality at the Rokslide over this very simple point. KE is a rough measure of what a projectile can produce in the way of work. Why use the differently designed projectile argument? Why not say the projectiles are constructed exactly the same? The heavier bullet will have more mass allowing for wider destruction and deeper penetration. Would you rather hunt Cape Buffalo with a 500 gr. Bullet going 2000fps or a 50 grain bullet going the same speed both of FMJ design.

 

[FredH]

Describe the KE in the pictures below, and how that number (regardless of other variable like bullet type) will impact the outcome. Bonus points if you can deduct caliber without going to look for the source. For reference again, that last picture is the famous quartering away shot on an elk.

Or you could address this in the thread you started that you abandoned.

F

Thread 'Fragmenting bullets versus controlled expanding bullets'

Jan 18, 2025

So it seems "fragmenting" is a good thing and little is said about controlled expansion in hunting bullets here. I can see a fragmenting bullet having an edge when the bullet is of small diameter and 2x expansion would only mean .44 and you only have less than 80 grains of bullet to start with. The term controlled expanding and "hard bullets" is misleading as most bullets are designed to expand quickly but hold onto a percentage of weight. That is the controlled part. Leaving Mono bullets out of this argument it appears bullets that fragment to a great degree are going to throw lead...

• FredH
• Replies: 74
• Forum: Firearms

• 

View attachment 860265View attachment 860267
View attachment 860264View attachment 860266View attachment 860264View attachment 860268

Your argument that expanding bullets destroy tissue is obvious. It is also obvious that that a larger bullet at the same velocity of the same construction will create a larger path of destruction. Or even that a similar bullet at higher velocity will create a larger path of destruction, though it may not penetrate as deeply. In both cases the calculated KE is an indicator of such.

 

[Pickettpuncher]

I often wonder if there is a disconnect with reality at the Rokslide over this very simple point. KE is a rough measure of what a projectile can produce in the way of work. Why use the differently designed projectile argument? Why not say the projectiles are constructed exactly the same? The heavier bullet will have more mass allowing for wider destruction and deeper penetration. Would you rather hunt Cape Buffalo with a 500 gr. Bullet going 2000fps or a 50 grain bullet going the same speed both of FMJ design.

Because bullets are constructed to design different. You have bullets designed for deep penetration, you have bullets designed to expand rapidly, and fmj type bullets that basically pencil thru. It all depends on your need as to what you’d use. There is no disconnect. Just people that understand the differences. Also, your argument of using the same bullet type but in different weights has been expanded on a few times in this very thread, and there’s little difference in penetration and wound channels. I’ve yet to see you bring evidence that energy matters, that’s it measurable, or that it can be measured consistently across a broad range of energy numbers.

 

[FredH]

Two specific examples: One bear I shot with a bullet with ~690 ft-lbs of KE at impact, another with a bullet with ~2,640 ft-lbs of KE at impact. Are you able to use that calculation to predict the results of those broadside hits?

Absolutely, KE allowed both to take place, so it's relevant in that respect, but how you would use it as a predictor of outcome?

Tell me what other than bullet placement/construction/velocity and mass is a predictor of outcome?

 

[FredH]

Because bullets are constructed to design different. You have bullets designed for deep penetration, you have bullets designed to expand rapidly, and fmj type bullets that basically pencil thru. It all depends on your need as to what you’d use. There is no disconnect. Just people that understand the differences. Also, your argument of using the same bullet type but in different weights has been expanded on a few times in this very thread, and there’s little difference in penetration and wound channels. I’ve yet to see you bring evidence that energy matters, that’s it measurable, or that it can be measured consistently across a broad range of energy numbers.

I agree but why would one compare say a FMJ with a varmint bullet? My 338 will out penetrate and make wider wound channels than a 243. Oddly it's calculated KE is greater. Mass matters.