Terminal Ballistics at Distance - KE, OGW, TKO, MO and KPS formulas

[MaraviaDave]

From my perspective, this article BULLET “ENERGY” (ft-lbs) VERSUS “TKO” EFFECTIVENESS ON BIG GAME (buffalobore.com) makes a good case that the measurement used for bullet energy (Kinetic Energy) by most hunters may not be the best for quantifying terminal ballistic effectiveness on larger sized big game animals.

A couple of key points from the article in regards to KE are as follows;
1. First, this formula uses velocity squared, so it will always give higher values to lighter, faster bullets and lighter, faster bullets are meaningless to an 800 lb. bull elk or more especially to a 2,000 lb. stomping mad Cape buffalo.
2. Second, this calculation ignores bullet diameter, which is very important as the quarry gets bigger and tougher.
3. Third, this calculation ignores bullet shape..i.e. in general terms; a round nosed solid/non-expanding bullet will do less terminal damage than a flat nosed solid bullet.
4. Fourth, it ignores bullet construction.

Here's an example from the article that illustrates the point;
"As one example of the flawed ft-lbs formula, let’s look at one very early and popular good old standby 45-70 load compared to a modern 22-250 load. The early 45-70 gained much of its big game killing fame by pushing a 405gr. lead round nosed bullet @ 1,350 fps with black powder….this load generates 1,638 ft-lbs of energy……The typical 22-250 load of a 50gr. bullet moving @ 3,850 fps generates a slightly higher number of 1,645 ft-lbs, but let me ask, which load would you want to hunt grizzly with?…..or better, which load would you want to try and stop a charging grizzly with?"

The author presents the Taylor Knock Out (TKO) formula as a better alternative to KE for measuring cartridge/bullet effectiveness, on heavily constructed game animals, in comparison to less heavily constructed game animals. However, there is an application for KE, which he explains;
So, where/when are kinetic energy numbers meaningful when applied to kill mammals? I believe that with super thin skinned, lightly constructed animals that weigh under 200 lbs., kinetic energy has a meaningful application, but remember that those kinetic energy numbers are still coupled with other factors that we cannot give a value to, such as bullet construction (mushrooming, fragmentation, secondary projectiles such as bone fragments, state of mind of the mammal being shot, etc., etc., etc.) and depth of penetration, etc. Thin-skinned smaller animals like whitetail deer, humans, coyotes, etc. are all susceptible to the effect of faster lighter bullets. These types of animals do not require super deep penetration to be killed, so kinetic energy numbers have meaningful application, but not so with buffalo, grizzly, moose, etc. From a great deal of personal experience, I can tell you that the above 22-250 load would literally explode a 4 lb. Rock Chuck hit within normal shooting distances, but the old 45-70 load would just make a big hole in a Rock Chuck……..so the Kinetic energy calculation is more meaningful with the small mammals, than with giant mammals.

***please read the original article, by clicking the link above, for full context***

Recognizing that there are other energy calculations out there, each one having supporters and detractors, I built spreadsheets to compare the rifle/bullet combinations I hunt with, using the various formulas. Doing this has helped me become aware of the the biases (e.g. velocity, bullet weight sectional density, cross-sectional area, etc), considered for each formula.

Of course there are things not accounted for in the formulas. Specifically bullet construction (frangible vs controlled expansion) and shot placement. Shooting a moose quartering towards you, requires more from a bullet / impact energy / terminal ballistic perspective, than center punching the lungs of a broadside bull.

In addition to helping make more informed decisions about cartridge selection for different hunting applications. I also believe the value of these formulas are to assist in making comparisons between bullet options in a given cartridge type.....in regards to choices of bullet weight and efficiency (BC) and the subsequent impact velocities at distance.

If you'd like to make your own comparisons, use the formulas listed below;

Kinetic Energy (ft-lbs)
(velocity)^2*(bullet weight) / 450440

Optimum Game Weight (lbs)
(velocity)^3*(bullet weight)*1.5*10^-12

Taylor K.O. Factor
(bullet weight)*(velocity)*(bullet sectional density) / 7000
**Bullet SD= ((bullet weight)/7000)) / ((bullet diameter)^2)

Momentum *ft-lbs)
(bullet weight)*(velocity) / 6990.78

Killing Power Score
(kinetic energy)*(bullet sectional density)*(bullet cross sectional area)
**Bullet SD= ((bullet weight)/7000)) / ((bullet diameter)^2)
**Bullet CSA= ((bullet diameter) / 2)^2*3.1416

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Lots of us figured out long ago that ke (ft/lbs energy) is mostly a useless number in terminal ballistics, this should be a fun thread.

It's easiest to look at the 700 nitro express throwing 1000 grain 3/4" diam. solids with 10,000 ft/lbs ke failing to penetrate deep enough into elephants skulls to hit the brain pan, sometimes only knocking them out. Then look at Bell who killed some ~1100 elephants and a shat ton of them with 6.5 mannlicher and a 7mm something or other and he was making into the brain pans.

You can put 50,000 ft/lbs behind the grill of a Land Rover and that elephant is going to shrug it off and squash you, as the SD isn't high enough nor is the velocity high enough.

The numbers that explain Bell and the 6.5 Mannlicher vs the 700 Nitro Express success on elephants are impact velocity, SD and the other factor that matters to SD is construction type, if construction is soft the SD is lost quickly so penetration is lost quickly (your .22-250 vs 45-70 example). So best to compare solids as I'm sure the 6.5 Mannlicher and 700 Nitro were. Go look up the velocities and SD's for those elephant examples...you'll see they are higher on both from the 6.5 and that's what it takes to reach the brain pan. If you don't have enough of either you're in for a rodeo and ft/lbs doesn't mean squat.

In our hunting though we use variable SD bullets so the conversation gets muddier as penetration can't be compared as equally only between construction types (rapid expansion, delayed controlled expansion etc.). So most of our discussions are subjective with a loose understanding of what's really happening with impact velocity/SD and construction type...for game intended.

Having said that I do still think the energy number can be used for our variable sd bullets but more in terms of dump per inch through the core of game animals way. Ie; maybe you dump 100 ft/lbs per inch over 24" with a 300 win mag and a bonded bullet vs 70 ft/lbs per inch over 18" with a 6.5 Creedmoor with 140 eld-m's? I don't think we are quite there yet in terminal ballistics discussions to talk like that but I do believe there is hope for the energy number yet...as a way to explain the internal damages cones in a comparative way across our bullet/cartridge combos.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Agree 100% with the both of the above. Time and a place for different bullet styles/construction based on the game being hunted. With that said, the 200 TTSX out of my 35 Whelen AI is just as effective on shots through muley's broadside at 100 yds as it is on elk at 350 yds quartering away or towards. Vitals are out of commission and the animal is dead. While that cartridge and bullet choice has a decent ballistics, it ain't getting it done with energy and pics of liquefied organs. Effective retained SD from controlled and proper expansion with momentum is doing the job.

 

[Rich M]

I think it comes down to bullet performance in damaging vital tissue - it also has to sufficiently penetrate the critter.

 

[35WhelenAI]

I think it comes down to bullet performance in damaging vital tissue - it also has to sufficiently penetrate the critter.

Absolutely. Match the bullet to the needed parameters with respect to expansion characteristics, game size and choose shot angles where the chosen bullet can then succeed.

 

[rifletuner]

Terminal ballistics formula's have more holes in them than the "Ethics in hunting, the story of my once in a lifetime Buck" thread.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

We could be further along I agree but why does shot placement always come into these discussions? Can we not all agree that that trumps all and get back to terminal ballistics talk assuming we can shoot? Lol

 

[Stinky Coyote]

By trial and error we’ve subjectively come to some loose understanding that for deer size game you want approx. .2 sd and min impact velocities in the 1600 fps range with rapid or delayed expansion bullets. For elk size game .25 sd and 1800 fps with more delayed expansion bullets. But see how subjective that still is? I hate that...we have the ability to standardize terminal ballistics so we can objectively discuss but we’re behind. At least behind in terms of comparing our levels of understanding of the in flight ballistics. Anyway...most will do well to throw energy and momentum out the window and focus on sd and impact velocities and construction for game intended.

 

[Rich M]

My .357 mag shoots a pointy bullet to 200 yards w ease. It hits w about 1400-1450 fps, and since the bullet is rumored to expand down to 800 fps, its a great combination. Im sticking w that. Will shoot at least 1 deer with it at 200-ish range before changing my mind or saying i told you so. Its really good inside 100 yards.

Why do i need to know other numbers?

 

[MaraviaDave]

By trial and error we’ve subjectively come to some loose understanding that for deer size game you want approx. .2 sd and min impact velocities in the 1600 fps range with rapid or delayed expansion bullets. For elk size game .25 sd and 1800 fps with more delayed expansion bullets. But see how subjective that still is? I hate that...we have the ability to standardize terminal ballistics so we can objectively discuss but we’re behind. At least behind in terms of comparing our levels of understanding of the in flight ballistics. Anyway...most will do well to throw energy and momentum out the window and focus on sd and impact velocities and construction for game intended.

I think there's more to this than sectional density (SD) and minimum impact velocity and disagree with the statement that......"most will do well to throw energy and momentum out the window and focus on sd and impact velocities and construction for game intended."

Using the ballistic tables, for the cartridges / bullets that I shoot, which were attached to my first post....let's make a comparison.

Using your minimum recommendation for elk sized game requiring at least a 0.250 SD and 1800 FPS impact velocity. See the comparison between a 6.5 Creedmoor and 375 H&H in the table below.

Cartridge	Sectional Density	Bullet Velocity (fps)	Kinetic Energy (ft-lbs)	Big Game OGW (lbs)	Taylor K.O. Factor	Momentum (ft-lbs)	Killing Power Score
6.5 CM	0.301	1814	1074	193	11.48	38.14	17.71
375 H&H	0.274	1822	1990	618	19.28	70.37	60.28
Increased energy of 375 H&H vs. 6.5 CM			85%	220%	68%	85%	240%

As you can see the 6.5 CM has a higher SD and the impact velocities are essentially the same for both cartridges. Clearly the 375 H&H has a lot more energy on target. If we take the average across all of the formulas the result would be ~140% increased energy of the 375 H&H, in comparison to the 6.5 CM.

From a practical experience perspective....I've killed a lot of moose and a few interior grizzlies with the 375 and also hunted with quite a few guys shooting 30 cal magnums and 7 mm mags. The increased energy on target with the 375 is undeniable. I personally would never shoot a moose with a 6.5 CM and wouldn't hunt with someone who chose to use one either.

I agree that choosing the proper bullet construction, in regards to the game animal being hunted, is very important. Along with understanding the minimum impact velocities that are required, in order to have the highest probability of proper bullet performance. However, I differ in the belief that energy on target calculations should be thrown out.

 

[MaraviaDave]

Why do i need to know other numbers?

You most likely don't. Considering you're shots are relatively close and the game animal is a thin skinned, small framed, whitetail.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Cut “Creedmoor” and insert “Swede” and suddenly the crappy 6.5 instantly becomes a proven moose killer with a very long and successful track record.

Folks should shoot “enough” gun for their intended target with the caveat that they can shoot it accurately and consistently. No argument from me on that point.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Where’s an archer when you need one…

 

[MaraviaDave]

Cut “Creedmoor” and insert “Swede” and suddenly the crappy 6.5 instantly becomes a proven moose killer with a very long and successful track record.

Thanks for voicing this commonly held misperception. I appreciate the opportunity to address it here....

Yes, the Swedes do use the 6.5x55 to harvest thousands of moose per year. However, Alaska moose hunting and Swedish moose hunting is quite a bit different. For starters, the Swedes are hunting the Eurasian “elk” version of a moose. While still large, the Eurasian elk (moose) are similar to the Shiras, found in the rocky mountain states and is considerably smaller than the Alaskan moose; in fact, about 1/3 or so smaller.

Shooting a Shiras or Eurasian moose is more like shooting an elk than an Alaska / Yukon moose with respect to size. A couple of google searches will make the difference in size very apparent.

The 6.5x55 is very popular, largely due to the fact that it was widely available in very inexpensive surplus rifles. Any sort of bargain rifle will inevitably find its way into the hunting field and be used out of proportion to other options regardless of its technical merit.

Moose hunting in Sweden is very much a pastoral pursuit. The focus is on harvesting animals for market and a lot of the harvest is cows, calves, and small bulls.

Hunting is generally in timber and the shooting tends to be close, in comparison to Western U.S. and Alaska standards. The Swedes typically use very heavy for caliber round nose bullets. As opposed to the lighter weight (140'ish grain), more frangible, high BC bullets commonly shot from 6.5's in the U.S.

In Alaska, the focus is mainly on harvesting large, mature bulls. Which are generally found in open country, where longer range shots are a distinct probability. Or, they'll be coming to the call, which typically results in short range shooting, with the most likely shot angle being head-on or steeply quartering towards the hunter.

I want a cartridge and bullet combination that will be versatile enough for either of these two most likely scenarios.

This years bull is a good example of this. Killed at 396 yards. G.A. Precision built 375 H&H, Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42 scope, shooting Barnes 270 grain Long Range X (LRX) bullets. Shot off an RRS tripod, from the standing, due to the tall brush I was in.


I'm a big fan of the 6.5 Creedmoor. When used appropriately. For me, that's going to be a high round count training rifle, while working on positional shooting from tripods and natural obstacles. My 6.5 CM shares the same stock (Manners EH1), trigger (TT Primary) and scope reticle as all of my other rifles. This allows me to shoot ~1,000 rounds per year, with a lot of training value that will apply to my hunting rifles.

I don't consider the 6.5 Creedmoor a capable hunting rifle for Alaskan moose.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

I think there's more to this than sectional density (SD) and minimum impact velocity and disagree with the statement that......"most will do well to throw energy and momentum out the window and focus on sd and impact velocities and construction for game intended."

Using the ballistic tables, for the cartridges / bullets that I shoot, which were attached to my first post....let's make a comparison.

Using your minimum recommendation for elk sized game requiring at least a 0.250 SD and 1800 FPS impact velocity. See the comparison between a 6.5 Creedmoor and 375 H&H in the table below.

Cartridge	Sectional Density	Bullet Velocity (fps)	Kinetic Energy (ft-lbs)	Big Game OGW (lbs)	Taylor K.O. Factor	Momentum (ft-lbs)	Killing Power Score
6.5 CM	0.301	1814	1074	193	11.48	38.14	17.71
375 H&H	0.274	1822	1990	618	19.28	70.37	60.28
Increased energy of 375 H&H vs. 6.5 CM			85%	220%	68%	85%	240%

As you can see the 6.5 CM has a higher SD and the impact velocities are essentially the same for both cartridges. Clearly the 375 H&H has a lot more energy on target. If we take the average across all of the formulas the result would be ~140% increased energy of the 375 H&H, in comparison to the 6.5 CM.

From a practical experience perspective....I've killed a lot of moose and a few interior grizzlies with the 375 and also hunted with quite a few guys shooting 30 cal magnums and 7 mm mags. The increased energy on target with the 375 is undeniable. I personally would never shoot a moose with a 6.5 CM and wouldn't hunt with someone who chose to use one either.

I agree that choosing the proper bullet construction, in regards to the game animal being hunted, is very important. Along with understanding the minimum impact velocities that are required, in order to have the highest probability of proper bullet performance. However, I differ in the belief that energy on target calculations should be thrown out.

and here's where it gets muddy but I'll try to make this as simple as possible, there's an article out there somewhere that will explain this very well about a guy who shot a 416 on a mountain goat vs a .270 win, the 416 doesn't lose it's sd so just poked a hole, not very impressive damage or death, the .270 win with rapid expansion bullet was able to dump probably 20x the energy inside the goat and they flatten like lightening...

now, if your example above had those bullets the same construction type...solids...the 6.5 is going deeper due to the higher sd, hard to imagine but the 6.5 mannlicher vs 700 nitro express on elephants instantly proved that energy and momentum are useless figures, yes the hole will be a little bigger with one vs the other but fractions of an inch...the 6.5 goes deeper

now lets do your example again with expansion bullets that are equal (hypothetical as that would be near impossible) 6.5 vs 375 example, if the 6.5 has a finished sd of .00 whatever and expanded 3x diam. in 20" of animal and you could replicate that expansion and sd reduction with the .375 bullet over the same 20" then yes the 375 will dump an impressive amount of energy over those 20"...the main problem with these situations though is the large bullets are typically too tough and retain their sd so all that potential 'work' they carry is dumped into the hillside well beyond the animal

a good place to understand all this would be the .223 thread, if you desire 4' of penetration on running away elk or charging g-bears then get the big heavies with sd that hardly changes, but if 18-24" penetration will do you can get a lot of work internally with a high sd rapid to moderate expansion bullets in moderate impact velocity windows, tougher the bullet the faster you need to drive it to get it to work inside the critters (inefficient, overbore etc.)

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Thanks for voicing this commonly held misperception. I appreciate the opportunity to address it here....

Yes, the Swedes do use the 6.5x55 to harvest thousands of moose per year. However, Alaska moose hunting and Swedish moose hunting is quite a bit different. For starters, the Swedes are hunting the Eurasian “elk” version of a moose. While still large, the Eurasian elk (moose) are similar to the Shiras, found in the rocky mountain states and is considerably smaller than the Alaskan moose; in fact, about 1/3 or so smaller.

Shooting a Shiras or Eurasian moose is more like shooting an elk than an Alaska / Yukon moose with respect to size. A couple of google searches will make the difference in size very apparent.

The 6.5x55 is very popular, largely due to the fact that it was widely available in very inexpensive surplus rifles. Any sort of bargain rifle will inevitably find its way into the hunting field and be used out of proportion to other options regardless of its technical merit.

Moose hunting in Sweden is very much a pastoral pursuit. The focus is on harvesting animals for market and a lot of the harvest is cows, calves, and small bulls.

Hunting is generally in timber and the shooting tends to be close, in comparison to Western U.S. and Alaska standards. The Swedes typically use very heavy for caliber round nose bullets. As opposed to the lighter weight (140'ish grain), more frangible, high BC bullets commonly shot from 6.5's in the U.S.

In Alaska, the focus is mainly on harvesting large, mature bulls. Which are generally found in open country, where longer range shots are a distinct probability. Or, they'll be coming to the call, which typically results in short range shooting, with the most likely shot angle being head-on or steeply quartering towards the hunter.

I want a cartridge and bullet combination that will be versatile enough for either of these two most likely scenarios.

This years bull is a good example of this. Killed at 396 yards. G.A. Precision built 375 H&H, Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42 scope, shooting Barnes 270 grain Long Range X (LRX) bullets. Shot off an RRS tripod, from the standing, due to the tall brush I was in.
View attachment 416393

I'm a big fan of the 6.5 Creedmoor. When used appropriately. For me, that's going to be a high round count training rifle, while working on positional shooting from tripods and natural obstacles. My 6.5 CM shares the same stock (Manners EH1), trigger (TT Primary) and scope reticle as all of my other rifles. This allows me to shoot ~1,000 rounds per year, with a lot of training value that will apply to my hunting rifles.

I don't consider the 6.5 Creedmoor a capable hunting rifle for Alaskan moose.

Great post, if you want an unlimited barrel life trainer for that positional shooting that would still dust some wolves, sheep and bou's to about 400 then grab a 6.5 Grendel, order cases of mucho affordable hornady black 123gr eld-m and sell that barrel burnin manbun.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

My .357 mag shoots a pointy bullet to 200 yards w ease. It hits w about 1400-1450 fps, and since the bullet is rumored to expand down to 800 fps, its a great combination. Im sticking w that. Will shoot at least 1 deer with it at 200-ish range before changing my mind or saying i told you so. Its really good inside 100 yards.

Why do i need to know other numbers?

you could likely do very similar work with a .17 hmr and not the v-max bullet, the xtp or even tnt would likely do

a little visit to the .223 thread would confirm that

good combo and I like your method and choice, I still think one day I'll get the little ruger 77/357 and put the Leupold ultralight fixed 2.5x on it but

 

[brushape]

Pick the range you want to shoot and a bullet that will open up well in the velocity window at that range, poke a hole in the lungs and break a shoulder if you’d like and that’s all you need to know. Shoot too heavy or too light of bullets and get out of that ideal velocity window and you will start to have issues with under expansion or over expansion/ lack of penetration. No one bullet/cartridge combo will work at all ranges on all animals perfectly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Thanks for voicing this commonly held misperception. I appreciate the opportunity to address it here....

Yes, the Swedes do use the 6.5x55 to harvest thousands of moose per year. However, Alaska moose hunting and Swedish moose hunting is quite a bit different. For starters, the Swedes are hunting the Eurasian “elk” version of a moose. While still large, the Eurasian elk (moose) are similar to the Shiras, found in the rocky mountain states and is considerably smaller than the Alaskan moose; in fact, about 1/3 or so smaller.

Shooting a Shiras or Eurasian moose is more like shooting an elk than an Alaska / Yukon moose with respect to size. A couple of google searches will make the difference in size very apparent.

The 6.5x55 is very popular, largely due to the fact that it was widely available in very inexpensive surplus rifles. Any sort of bargain rifle will inevitably find its way into the hunting field and be used out of proportion to other options regardless of its technical merit.

Moose hunting in Sweden is very much a pastoral pursuit. The focus is on harvesting animals for market and a lot of the harvest is cows, calves, and small bulls.

Hunting is generally in timber and the shooting tends to be close, in comparison to Western U.S. and Alaska standards. The Swedes typically use very heavy for caliber round nose bullets. As opposed to the lighter weight (140'ish grain), more frangible, high BC bullets commonly shot from 6.5's in the U.S.

In Alaska, the focus is mainly on harvesting large, mature bulls. Which are generally found in open country, where longer range shots are a distinct probability. Or, they'll be coming to the call, which typically results in short range shooting, with the most likely shot angle being head-on or steeply quartering towards the hunter.

I want a cartridge and bullet combination that will be versatile enough for either of these two most likely scenarios.

This years bull is a good example of this. Killed at 396 yards. G.A. Precision built 375 H&H, Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42 scope, shooting Barnes 270 grain Long Range X (LRX) bullets. Shot off an RRS tripod, from the standing, due to the tall brush I was in.
View attachment 416393

I'm a big fan of the 6.5 Creedmoor. When used appropriately. For me, that's going to be a high round count training rifle, while working on positional shooting from tripods and natural obstacles. My 6.5 CM shares the same stock (Manners EH1), trigger (TT Primary) and scope reticle as all of my other rifles. This allows me to shoot ~1,000 rounds per year, with a lot of training value that will apply to my hunting rifles.

I don't consider the 6.5 Creedmoor a capable hunting rifle for Alaskan moose.

Also, interesting your 375 hh and 270gr barnes combo, a bit of 21st century added to an early 20th century case. Running about 2730 fps, .449 bc, .274 sd (which in a barnes it will retain very well) and at 400 yards you'll impact about 2000 fps and that barnes will barely open up. Internal damage should be fairly unimpressive.

The 21st century answer to this for those giant moose that came to mind was the new 6.8 Western running 175 gr bullets. 2835 fps, .617 bc, .326 sd (with likely more rapid expansion construction than barnes) and at 400 yards you'll impact about 2330 fps and you'll do it burning about 20 grains less powder.

I think you'd see more than enough penetration with that 6.8 175gr combo for those big moose with that huge initial sd but a ton more internal damage with this combo as it's going to do an incredible amount of work over say 36" vs the slower 270gr barnes that will barely be opening up at that impact velocity. You should see shorter recoveries and far more internal damage with the lighter recoiling lower ko value example here. Food for thought...but we seem to be comparing some 20th century subjective views here against 21st century understandings. Energy/momentum/ko factors are pretty useless figures for what we do in North America.

That 6.8 Western is going to be a bit of a sleeper that will earn it's reputation slowly, that .326 sd is a monster that allows a lot of the front half of that long bullet to expand and do work internally while having lots of tail end of bullet left (retained sd) to keep driving deep on bigger critters. I don't think the 6.8 Western will even blink on deer/elk sized game so it may seem unimpressive until you get into those big bears and moose up north.

You've got a combo that works and you prolly built it before the 6.8 Western even came along but if a guy was building for the same needs you ask now...there are more options and several will use a lot less powder for more efficiency and likely perform better than barnes as well. Not only that but this example the 375 barnes combo is about wrapped up at 400 yards...the 6.8 Western example is just getting warmed up at 400 yards, with that .617 bc it's drifting and shedding velocity WAY less than the big fat boat...likely nearly double your effective range...yup I just checked, your 2000 fps comes in at 700 yards with the 6.8 combo.

I know which one I'd choose for those giant moose, the one with the cheesy name but all the right numbers, it would be like the Alaskan Manbun Cartridge lol.

 

[MaraviaDave]

.......a guy who shot a 416 on a mountain goat vs a .270 win, the 416 doesn't lose it's sd so just poked a hole, not very impressive damage or death, the .270 win with rapid expansion bullet was able to dump probably 20x the energy inside the goat and they flatten like lightening...

....now, if your example above had those bullets the same construction type...solids...the 6.5 is going deeper due to the higher sd....

The example of the guy with the 416 shooting a mountain goat, only illustrates that the cartridge/bullet for that application was most likely a poor choice. The majority of 416 bullets are heavily constructed controlled expansion, large in caliber and heavy in weight. Mountain goats have relatively thin body widths. Lighter weight cartridges/bullets with faster bullet expansion characteristics are going to be preferable. Case in point is the guy shooting the .270 WIn.

Discussing SD's with a frame of reference to shooting SOLID bullets out of a 6.5 CM versus a 375 H&H, seems irrelevant to a discussion where we're talking about hunting North American big game, in the Long Range forum.

The key focal points, from my perspective, are to pick a cartridge and bullet combination that are as versatile/well-rounded as possible, considering the target animal and most likely shot yardages. In order to do that; two of the very important factors that need to be considered are energy at the target and the design characteristics of the bullet.