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

I make them as not all that big, pretty fast when it wants to be, not that heavy and soft. After running that through my mental calculator I left the .375 with monos in the tent and went for a walk with a .300 RUM (loaded to .300 Win speed so a big small gun that can be pretty fast when it wants to be) stuffed with 180 grain Accubonds. Not all that big, pretty fast, not that heavy and soft. Coastal bear died so fast that it looked like an invisible building had fallen on it.

Those who contend ft-lbs energy does not measure lethality are at least partially right. The mistake most people make is using the ft-lbs tool incorrectly. Comparing the energy of a broadhead arrow to that of a .30 cal/180g form a .300WM is interesting because both are lethal but the ft-lbs energy needed to make them so are so radically different. That difference demonstrates the problem - using ft-lbs energy alone to compare the lethality of two different projectiles is pretty much a fools game.

That said, give me a .30 caliber/180g bullet of any design and I'll take 2000 ft-lbs over 200 if shooting elk. And I'll take 200 if shooting a rabbit destined for the dinner table.

ft-lbs energy doesn't measure anything directly except ft-lbs energy. That doesn't mean ft-lbs is a useless tool or that it tells us nothing useful. I can think of four very different ways to use a barometer whose characteristics are completely known to me to measure the height of a building - but it really isn't the best tool for the job.

I finally got it.

Just like the garanimals kids clothing line.

Go to Walmart mart, pick out a box of shells that has a picture of an animal resembeling the one on your tag, and if in doubt buy an arrow,


BTW foot and pound is in the English scale, is not our friend the metric scale based on the volume and mass of water? As in ccs?

But I guess a pints a pound the world around, but wait a minute.....is that an imperial pint? Or an English pound? Or a euro?

Metric, used as I clearly did, does not refer to the metric scale. In technical use it refers to any system or point of reference that can be used to measure. But it is obvious you cannot keep any term on-topic.

I doubt you barometer would make much of a bullet...

Are these equations s Newtons Laws or Einstein theories?

Having gotten to shoot quite a few of them I mostly agree, but short of CNS, they take a while to realize they are dead.

You should be able to do the calcualtions, no mater the units, if you are smart enough.

Many old timers believed in bigger is better. I tend to believe that was right at the time. With expanding bullets, you can get away with smaller calibers now. But what about 1/2 hole from a heavy LSWC vs 1/2 hole from light HP?

Most people will say 12 gauge shotgun slug, is devasting. Slow and heavy.

[img]http://Image result for calculation of kinetic energy[/img]

.

You make a good point. I agree, tho if an animal goes that far, the fault is likely not "killing effect" of the bullet/caliber (it could be, because of bad judgement of suitability), but placement. If placement is the problem, "killing effect" related to the caliber/bullet is almost entirely a mute point.

Which is why CNS is good for DRT, but not so good for meat quality. Taking out a major artery such as SD suggests, is excellent for meat quality, tho the critter may go some distance. You pays your money and takes your chance. Circumstances other than bullet weight, construction, and caliber often dictate what is a good "killing effect" on a particular animal.

I once shot a yearling moose a bit high, through the major artery just below the backbone, at 35 yards with a 12 gauge shotgun slug. He was running, and kept running for about 100 yards, keeling over in mid-stride down meadow, in the open. The slug had perfectly centered the artery, leaving artery wall on each side of the 12-gauge sized hole. Whitest moose meat I've ever eaten! Ate right up to the hole too, and the slug exited without apparently expanding. Pretty good "killing effect".

Fat, heavy, slow works!

The last moose I took (with 15-18 in between the two) was shot in the head with a 30-06, using 150 gr. Hornady Superperformance SST leaving the muzzle at 3080 fps advertised, at 30 yards, on open ground, from my snow machine seat. "Killing effect" doesn't get much more definitive than that. (Or an "easy moose" for that matter. ).

His meat retained pretty much all the blood that was in it at the shot, and was flavored and colored that way. I wasn't about to try to drag him out of waist-deep snow in nearby heavy alder brush, which he would have likely made had I shot him through the lungs or heart. No question I'd have recovered him, just how much energy I'd use doing so!

Another time I shot a feeding bull caribou at @ 375 yards (356 looong paces) with a 180gr. C&C (Corelokt), in 30-06. A bit low, it clipped the top of the brisket and either bone or bullet slashed slashed open the heart. He bolted, ran about 100 yards away, then about the same back at an angle, dying about 50 yards downhill from where he had been when I fired. Also very well bled out. Again in open country - no chance I'd not recover him. That's probably the longest distance I have ever had an animal travel. The second longest was another caribou a couple years back, shot at 290 yards with the above SST load. She ran about 70 yards, turned, ran back, and died within 5 yards of where I'd shot her. Double lunged. Seconds after she dropped, I shot another one, same placement, at 433 yards. That one only went about 5 yards. So how do I judge the "killing effect" of that round? Beats me. Dead is dead.

I shot 20-something caribou back in the late 70's over a 3 year period using a .25-06 with Speer 120 gr. hand loads. Every one was a bang flop, whether I hit them in the chest cavity (all but a couple) or the neck. Except the first- and he was dead on his feet, before the second, broadside thru the lungs, flattened him. The first took him at the base of the neck, quartering on, and lodged in the opposite hind leg. Ranges from 70 yards to over 500.

What placement I take depends on circumstances, but I prefer getting as much blood out of the meat as possible, and that is usually done with the bullet. For this I prefer an exit wound. In heavy cover/close range, I go for the CNS if presented. I really don't worry about "best bullet" or "killing effect".

So it really depends on what one is looking for as an end (multiple factors) result, the shot offered, and how one defines "killing effect".

Depends where you are hunting. Open country, a 200 yards is not a big deal. Some places, a 100 yards feels like a 1000. Also time of day, may effect my choice in shot placement.

Huge bull caribou on a bald knob, with heavy brush 50 yards all around, half dark, 262 yards, no good rest, light screen of grass heads halfway there, 180 gr Corelokt in '06........ "killing effect" somewhat in doubt..... last day of season, permit unfilled.

I call it "the best shot I never made".

If you find 100 yards feeling like 1000, you should probably limit your shots to 10.

Not sure what this means. Only once in my life, have I had time to fire a 2nd shot. The snow was 4 feet deep, and slowed the deer down.

But maybe I was over your head. Some terrain is harder to recover a deer in, than others.

You're right, it went right over my head. I've never hunted tough terrain like you have in "WI&UP."

It's a longasss 100 yds up there. I think he's eaten too much lead infested game, personally.

There is insufficient information in the above to provide a definitive answer.

Really?

Perhaps you should read this:

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter2.htm

Just one example.

Could you possibly find some information that is a little older, please?