Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[Pickettpuncher]

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 calculated KE is greater. Mass matters.

I would expect the 338 to penetrate further, but the wound channel would be dependent on the bullet. It’s not a linear translation whether you believe that or not.


The only reason compare a varmint bullet and fmj is to show how bullet construction matters, and energy numbers do not.

 

[KHntr]

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.

So what would be a real world, apples to apples comparison?

 

[Thegman]

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

You're goalpost shifting. You stated:

"...Those that refuse to see that the calculation of KE has merit and those that do not. I see the calculation as useful."

So, I gave you two examples of calculated KE from actual occurrences, and asked how you would use them to predict the outcome. Seems pretty straightforward, but your response is four other measures, none of them specifically KE?

(And since we're comparing 243 and 338WM, remember that last May I shot a grizzly with a 223 that went exactly as far and died as fast as a grizzly from the year before, shot at the same distance, with a 338WM. Not an occurrence that KE as a predictor of outcome can account for)

 

[Macintosh]

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.

This is the entire point of this thread, did you read it?

Which bullet makes the bigger wound, and which bullet has more KE?

1) a .223 75gr fragmenting bullet at 2500fps or a .308 175gr fmj at 2500fps?

2) a .223 75gr fragmenting bullet at 2000fps or a .308 175gr fragmenting bullet at 1400fps?

Theres^ 2 different examples where the bigger bullet with more kinetic energy—even when the same type of bullet is used—is not predictive of which one will make a bigger wound. In one example the energy isnt applied because the bullet pencils thru, and in the other even though the bullets are the same type, the larger bullet that is still carrying more ke is below the expansion velocity threshold for that bullet, and it will act +\- just like the fmj.

Keeping in mind that where I have heard people recommending ke as a measure of effectiveness they typically DONT provide any other info, what useful info does the calculation of KE tell me about the two above situations?

 

[eric1115]

I agree. Technically you can walk up to a 2000 pound beef and kill it with a .22 between the eyes. Doesn’t mean I’d hunt with it. I’m not opposed to the 6mm on big game idea. If you are disciplined and use a good bullet, go for it. But any argument that a bigger caliber isn’t more lethal is just flawed. More energy does matter. More energy equals more hydrostatic shock which equals more tissue damage. Period. That does not seem like an arguable point to me.

Do you think a 77TMK at 2000 fps makes a larger or smaller wound channel than a 150 .308 FMJ at 2000 fps?

Do you think a 6mm 108 ELDM and a .30 225 ELDM are more similar at at equal energy or equal velocity (as in, gel blocks side by side with both bullets impacting with 2000 FPS, vs both bullets impacting with 1000 ft-lb)?

Again, not saying a .22 can’t kill a 2000 point critters but the 300 win mag will do it in a lot more scenarios with a lot more margin. Find what you are disciplined and comfortable with and go for it.

A few questions for you...
1) How many big game animals have you killed using the heavy for caliber tipped .223 and 6mm match bullets that we cult members are using?

2) What are the characteristics of the wound channel with those bullets that you feel is lacking? Width? Depth?

 

[jpmulk]

Do you think a 77TMK at 2000 fps makes a larger or smaller wound channel than a 150 .308 FMJ at 2000 fps?

Do you think a 6mm 108 ELDM and a .30 225 ELDM are more similar at at equal energy or equal velocity (as in, gel blocks side by side with both bullets impacting with 2000 FPS, vs both bullets impacting with 1000 ft-lb)?



A few questions for you...
1) How many big game animals have you killed using the heavy for caliber tipped .223 and 6mm match bullets that we cult members are using?

2) What are the characteristics of the wound channel with those bullets that you feel is lacking? Width? Depth?

First off, I said I’m not against you “cult members”. I support you if you use the right bullet. Said that in my message. Might try rereading it. You are selecting specific bullets against specific bullets. And I’m not disputing you for your specific comparisons that you crafted. However, in general, I do believe energy has a role to play to answer the original question posed by the OP. Is it the most important thing? Nope. But it does have a role and it does matter. To discount it completely I do not think is fair.

 

[The Fish Box]

 

[The Fish Box]

 

[eric1115]

First off, I said I’m not against you “cult members”. I support you if you use the right bullet. Said that in my message. Might try rereading it. You are selecting specific bullets against specific bullets. And I’m not disputing you for your specific comparisons that you crafted. However, in general, I do believe energy has a role to play to answer the original question posed by the OP. Is it the most important thing? Nope. But it does have a role and it does matter. To discount it completely I do not think is fair.

Would you be willing to answer the questions I asked you?

I don't think you're against us, it's just a bit of shorthand for "those of us who have tried and really liked using small diameter but heavy for caliber rapidly fragmenting, usually tipped, match bullets such as the ELDM, TMK, and some others like Berger, nose ringed DTAC, etc. for use on big game".

I did read your message a couple of times. There were multiple absolute statements made by you in it that are absolutely, demonstrably incorrect. I'm trying to respond in a way that respectfully shows how and why your stated position does not align with the data/results of actual bullets being shot into tissue.

 

[HandgunHTR]

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.

You guys always come back with something along this line. When has anyone argued differently that what you wrote?

The point we are all trying to make is that a bigger, heavier bullet isn't necessary to create an adequate and effective wound channel on game. If a 6mm 108 grain bullet will create a wound channel big enough to kill anything in North America, why use a 225 grain 338 caliber bullet? This is where people start saying that the extra energy will provide some type of "insurance" in the case of a bad hit. This is where the divergence is. A bad hit is a bad hit. There is not enough difference in size of wound channel between those two bullets that will turn a bad hit into a quick kill.

 

[Harvey_NW]

I agree. Technically you can walk up to a 2000 pound beef and kill it with a .22 between the eyes. Doesn’t mean I’d hunt with it. I’m not opposed to the 6mm on big game idea. If you are disciplined and use a good bullet, go for it. But any argument that a bigger caliber isn’t more lethal is just flawed. More energy does matter. More energy equals more hydrostatic shock which equals more tissue damage. Period. That does not seem like an arguable point to me. Again, not saying a .22 can’t kill a 2000 point critters but the 300 win mag will do it in a lot more scenarios with a lot more margin. Find what you are disciplined and comfortable with and go for it.

That's false. "Hydrostatic shock" is definitively the temporary stretch cavity, and depending upon bullet construction and the fact that tissue is elastic, it may or may not be actual tissue damage, which is pretty much the entire point of this thread.

 

[FredH]

So what would be a real world, apples to apples comparison?

Odd question considering the subject. Why would you consider two different energy levels Apples to apples?

 

[FredH]

That's false. "Hydrostatic shock" is definitively the temporary stretch cavity, and depending upon bullet construction and the fact that tissue is elastic, it may or may not be actual tissue damage, which is pretty much the entire point of this thread.

So in your mind the temprorary stretch cavity is not material? That it is not a factor in quick kills?

 

[FredH]

You guys always come back with something along this line. When has anyone argued differently that what you wrote?

The point we are all trying to make is that a bigger, heavier bullet isn't necessary to create an adequate and effective wound channel on game. If a 6mm 108 grain bullet will create a wound channel big enough to kill anything in North America, why use a 225 grain 338 caliber bullet? This is where people start saying that the extra energy will provide some type of "insurance" in the case of a bad hit. This is where the divergence is. A bad hit is a bad hit. There is not enough difference in size of wound channel between those two bullets that will turn a bad hit into a quick kill.

Where the bonus in larger cartridges comes in is deeper penetration, better bone breaking ability and the option to take shot angles that smaller cartridges with softer bullets shouldn't take. What would be a bad hit with a smaller cartridge can be just fine with say a 35 Whelen.

 

[Bluefish]

Where the bonus in larger cartridges comes in is deeper penetration, better bone breaking ability and the option to take shot angles that smaller cartridges with softer bullets shouldn't take. What would be a bad hit with a smaller cartridge can be just fine with say a 35 Whelen.

Gel data suggests different on the penetration. Just because it’s bigger and heavier doesn’t mean it penetrates more.

 

[KHntr]

Odd question considering the subject. Why would you
consider two different energy levels Apples to apples?

I wasn’t asking about different energy levels. I was asking about apes to apples differences.

So in your mind the temprorary stretch cavity is not material? That it is not a factor in quick kills?

So how do you reconcile the differences when its the same cartridge with the same velocity and the same energy, but different bullet construction?

 

[FredH]

I would expect the 338 to penetrate further, but the wound channel would be dependent on the bullet. It’s not a linear translation whether you believe that or not.


The only reason compare a varmint bullet and fmj is to show how bullet construction matters, and energy numbers do not.

How do energy numbers not matter when KE is a calculation that gives speed and mass a value. The bullet construction is important as is mass.

 

[Harvey_NW]

So in your mind the temprorary stretch cavity is not material?

Not quite sure what you mean by that.

That it is not a factor in quick kills?

In and of itself, no I don't believe it contributes to quick kills. Functionally, it is the permanent crush cavity that is the driving factor for quick kills. The way I understand it, the temporary stretch cavity is damaging little to no tissue, and I don't believe in the theories of it "shocking" vital organs or blood vessels. In most cases it's just the stretching of tissue, which as I previously said, is elastic. Now add jacket shrapnel into the equation, and you can damage exponentially more area of tissue. Which is also why I said depending on bullet construction.

How do energy numbers not matter when KE is a calculation that gives speed and mass a value. The bullet construction is important as is mass.

Because they don't tell you anything about what kind of wound will be produced, or how quickly the animal will die. Run the numbers on a 200gr 30 cal monolithic, and compare it to a 77gr 223 bullet. Now shoot animals and observe the wound channels, and report back. The 200gr mono will punch a hole through the vitals the size of the frontal diameter, the 77gr will look like a grenade went off inside the cavity. That's the crux of this entire thread. No one is arguing energy as a function of physics doesn't matter, it obviously does. I'm saying calculatable kinetic energy doesn't matter as a function of predicting wounding capabilities, because it's determined by bullet construction.

 

[Bluefish]

How do energy numbers not matter when KE is a calculation that gives speed and mass a value. The bullet construction is important as is mass.

How does energy matter if it does not correlate to wound created. The bullet construction determines that, not the energy. Mass is also not relevant as the bullet must upset to not pencil through, thus a light bullet that upsets can cause a big wound and a heavy bullet that doesn’t upset won’t. That means the only relevant factor left in the energy equation is velocity. Velocity is important as it causes upset. No upset, no big wound.

Causation can not exist without correlation. Since energy does not correlate to the wound created it can not causation, thus “irrelevant”. Bullet construction on the other hand has a strong correlation and thus can be causation.

 

[Pickettpuncher]

How do energy numbers not matter when KE is a calculation that gives speed and mass a value. The bullet construction is important as is mass.

I have nothing to add to Harvey or bluefish. Wound channels aren’t predictable by energy.