Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Bullet weight??

Use small, fast, light and soft bullets for small, fast, light and soft animals.

Use big, slow, heavy and hard bullets for big, slow, heavy and hard animals.

So brown bears are biggish, fastish, heavyish, and softish... how now?

Ok. How many "ft-lbs energy" do you need to kill a deer or elk? And with that number, what does the wound look like?

Formid. You either missed the point or were not looking.

Jordan stated it quite well that FPE has been used all wrong as a killing indicator.

THE point is E is essential (integral) to accomplish work !

Jerry

Best example of this is a full metal jacket bullet vs an expanding bullet of the same mass and same velocity (= same energy). Which will kill faster, excluding CNS hits?

I get the "point" exactly. When people bring up "energy" they are focusing on a thing that tells them absolutely nothing. If knowing a bullet has a certain amount of "ft-lbs energy" won't tell me anything about what that bullet will do in tissue, why bring it up?

Yes, energy is a mathematical fact... It's also a useless number for anyone to focus on as it doesn't tell anyone a single thing about what that bullet will do in tissue.

However, knowing that "X" bullet at 1,700fps impact velocity will penetrate 21 inches, have a 1.5 inch neck length, have a max temporary cavity of 7.8 inches, a TC that is 11 inches long, with the max TC at 9 inches DOES tell you something.

Knowing the "ft-lbs energy" does not in anyway tell you the above.


Again, people that are ignorant of terminal ballistics talk "energy". People that understand wound ballistics talk "placement, depth, width, and shape".

I've never given this wound channel stuff a single thought in the 45 yrs I've been hunting big game. I guess I figured out that simply using partitions, accubonds, interbonds, interlokts, or the later version BT's told me everything I needed to know, i.e they kill the schittt outa game.

I posed the question of "Foot pounds of Energy" some years ago and "Mule Deer's" response was elegant in it's simplicity,

to paraphrase,

"Animals die, not from foot pounds of energy but from broken body parts"

Another way to say it, place a decent bullet properly and things go well enough.

That's true. I'm sure that you know this (which is why you use them), but all of those bullets produce similar wound characteristics. Some penetrate a bit deeper, some a bit wider, but all similar.

With cup and core bullets I suggest twice the Foot Pounds Energy as the animal weighs. I. E. 750 pounds needs 1500 pounds at impact.

My suggestions are not for " long range" shots. ( over 500 yards) I have no experience.

Sectional density should be .25 for elk. As in 165 grain 30 caliber.

What I still do not understand is if FPE is so inaccurate to refer to why is I it so published and calculated in reloading manuals?
Further more why is it so bad to share and recommend such easily documented indices of a kinetic energy based projectile?

Is some one trying to re invent the wheel? Is this based on kidney stone removal data?

Why would I make this recommendation? In case one encounters a point blank shot, or a raking shot.

If one is disciplined to wait for the perfect harvest scenario by all means shoot just exactly what you rehearse.

But also please don't tread on me because I may suggest " overkill".

The monolithic bullet will behave differently, Terminal Ballistic Research web sight or some excellent studies posted here will also help you make informed decisions.

From what I have gathered you need roughly 2000 fps at impact with a monolithic to get it to expand. A study posted here showed a 130 grain 30 caliber will penetrate very well even at point blank on bovine femur ( stifle) joint.

Hope this helps.

Gather wood where you may ,we all feed the same fire.

Forget energy, get the best of all worlds, use a heavy stout bullet your rifle will shoot well in an appropriate cartridge and get speed AND massive penetration, win/win.

And if you get it dry enough even bullshit burns!

Reread what Formidulosis wrote... FPE does not measure anything of value in determining whether the bullet will kill effectively.

Consider E=MC2 (cannot figure out symbols on this tablet)
Velocity is squared and weighs in far heavier on Energy than Mass... yet a rather sedate heavy bullet will usually go very deep...

Imagine, some folks like to eat what they shoot!

I've always thought this is a poor arguement. I prefer dead nearby, to dead a mile away the next day. Of course, some with say, its dead and doesn't know the difference.

Ya, and stout bullets aint grenades, but you already knew that!

Depends on range and impact vol.....in theory ,but I'll bet you couldn't tell the difference if you killed 100 head with each bullet..

I agree it don't predict exact harvest ability, but it certainly can get pretty close. Not on the positive side ( harvest success.....but on the negative. Harvest failure) especially at point blank raking shots.

. Also FPE can be measured. Therefore it can be discussed, and it can be suggested.

So show me please where my above suggestions would not work using a hunting style bullet.

On thin skinned smaller game there are lots of harvest instances where frangebile lighter bullets will do devastating damage and effective harvest.

There was a deer hunting forum post yesterday with excellent necropsy photos of a .223 at 300 yards WOW!

Terminal Ballistic Research touts frangebile light bullets for thin skinned game with proper shot selection.

But what's your point?

Energy equals mass time velocity squared. Divided in half.

What are the units used?

They are all in the same equation? Why?

It is like FPE is a measurement that considers both bullet mass I E ability to penetrate, And ability to mushroom, open up, work, or drive through tissue.....velocity. It does not consider shot placement, but where does a higher FPE measurement using a hunting style bullet make the round less effective? Unless it is using an extreme of one indice or the other exclusively to get the higher value.

So as long as the sectional density requirement is met, therefore keeping projectile mass within reason, and taking into account smaller calibers can penetrate using less mass, FPE will then be an easy way to compare potiential effectiveness between calibers. Not so much to predict success at the rehearsed range, but to prevent harvest failure due to cartridge performance at non conventional harvest events.

Just remember monolithics may need to be more velocity driven, so sectional density should drop with in reason. I think near 4000 fps things get funky....not to mention barrel damage. But just armchair reading research there, I have no practical experience at those speeds.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So there is little reason in my mind to not use a strong cartridge that is up to the task, even for point blank raking shots.

This is my point of view, and I love to hunt elk in the bugle season, so I think a lot about close range point blank harvest events.

Why is momentum not published in reloading data?

What are the units of measurement for momentum?

Just my thoughts?

How about frangibility?

Thanks

Just WOW!!!

Sorry, but your failure to understand very basic Physics precludes taking the time to go over everything you do not get.

There is no "divided in half" in Einstein's equation.

All of these requirements you imagine exist, don't.

E has nothing to do with ability to penetrate as examples exist in every direction of inverse correlations between E and penetration, proving it is not a critical variable in every case.

E is what you are trying to mean, FP is simply the metric.

"Strong cartridge" is a pretty strange description in a Physics argument...

Your grasp of monolithics is monumental in its tenuous underpinnings...

Actually, are you visiting in Oregon and smoking someones stash?

Kenetic energy is 1/2*mass* velocity squared.

Ketamine.