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

As I said- there is no legit US DOD, DOJ, or medical entity the lists, measures, or cares about "ft-lbs energy". You, and the others that believe "ft-lbs energy" tells you how a bullet will damage and destroy tissue, or that some arbitrary number is required to be effective, are ignorant. Ignorance isn't bad, unless it refuses to learn- then it's stupidity.


Are there math and engineer dorks that try to assign some numbered equation to killing? Of course. That's because they can't let go of "numbers" and see that where a hole goes, how deep it goes, and how wide it is determines what kind, and how much, tissue is destroyed. What kind of tissue and how much tissue determines "effectiveness" and "killing power".

Every single legitimate entity has moved from "math" based metrics, to "damage based metrics". In NO instance does "1,500 ft-lbs" tell me what a bullet will do in an animal. To know what it will do, you have to measure it in tissue or tissue simulate (i.e.- properly calibrated 10% Ballistic gelatin).



If a bullet consistently puts a 6 inch hole through a deer 20 inches long, it doesn't matter how many "ft-lbs energy" it has.






Let's try this- how, in your mind, does using "energy" help you know what to expect from a bullet in an animal? How do you use "energy"?

Energy being defined as the ability to do work, and the work being to disrupt tissue and bone, clearly there are energy thresholds below which NO bullet could make that 6" swath 20" deep through a deer. Approaching it from that direction it's a number than has some minimal validity.

But I agree, in general.

The Military still uses ft-lbs of energy to determine 'hazardous fragments':

https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/DODMAN/605509-M-V1.pdf
"V1.E8.2.2.4. A hazardous fragment is one having an impact energy of 58 ft-lbs [79
joules] or greater. "

The last I knew, one is greater than "none".



I've never said nor believed that '"ft-lbs energy" tells you how a bullet will damage and destroy tissue'. Your statement is both wrong and demonstrates an ignorance of the facts regarding what I believe. Do you care to learn or are you going to be 'stupid'?

What I have consistently stated in many threads is that energy is a poor tool for doing that and is best used carefully in a limited set of circumstances. As I stated in a previous post in this thread, give me the same bullet with 2000 ft-lbs energy and the same bullet with 200 ft-lbs and I'll take the one with 2000 for elk and the one with 200 for rabbits. [Edited to add] Under those circumstances, I don't think a change in bullet weight or construction or velocity would change my preference.[End add]

What I have also been very consistent saying is that without energy there is NO tissue destruction and that the destruction of vital function is what kills. What that means is that with NO energy there is NO more possibility of killing an animal with a bullet than if you keep the bullet in your pocket.

What ft-lbs energy DOES provide is a means of estimating POTENTIAL destruction in a relative rather than quantitative manner. In other words, other factors being equal, more energy has greater POTENTIAL for destruction than does less energy.



How about you reread the above, which explains my thoughts on the matter pretty well.

Do you think there is a difference between flat barren land and wooded and hilly land?

I would think you wold if hunting CO. Maybe your emotions prevent you from being intelligent. Just so mad you are pooping yourself.


But a simple man, should understand that recovering a deer that runs 200 yards in wide open country, is different than other areas. But you seem to imply you do not understand that.

Are you just that upset, or should I be calling you a liar about where you hunt? I am going with too dumb. I have to no reason to believe you are not in CO.

Hunting in the wasteland of Texas, you may not realize what it is like to hunt other places. I was not talking about the shot.

Well, it's hard to put my finger on it. But I'm thinking "maybe?"

I doubt you are as dumb as you come across. You are just so upset, like a liberal. But you are so upset you write dumb [bleep].

Hunting in wastelands like Texas, if a deer runs a few hundred yards, it is not a big deal. Some places it is harder to recover or find, and you prefer the animal to run as far. Now I am sure you will write somthing you think is witty, and something you think counterdicts this. But you are emotions, are making an idiot of you. I tried being nice. But I don't think you are smart enough to get the nuances, and accpet the bone you are thrown.

OK, you got me. Now I'm thinking "probably."

No, I don't think you are as dumb as you act. I think yuo are acting up for your friends, and you think acting stupid, will not make you look stupid. Maybe self esteem issues.

Hey look I spelled you yuo. It is your chance to show how smart you.

OK, you really got to me that time. I'm thinking "highly likely??"

I should have been clearer. That is a fault on me. While I dont think you are as dumb as you act. I still think you are on the simple side. But if you were removed from distractions, and put in a room alone, I think you could come up with the answers, if they were given to you.

Being in the liberal state of CO, you should use to your defense, the enviroment you are in, not to mention the dope smoking. No, Daves not here.

OK, you got me, I'm changing my answer to "reasonably certain."

Don't worry, I don;t expect much from you. All your posts are about the same. You are not smart enough to come up with anything new. Maybe to late in the day for you.

OK, I'm convinced. I'm thinking "almost assuredly."

Could you repeat the question?

You, you are a genius, with your counter points.

You next post should have never, almost, maybe, assurdely, in some random order, to which you think makes you look smart.

But I have seen, I was wrong. I can admit it. Maybe first impressions about you are right. I am man enough to admit my mistake.

That's BS. I never even worked behind a counter. But I have cooked hambergers.

CO thing? I quoted you, so yuo couldn't delete it in the morning.

What, you don't like hambergers?

Makes sense. I always figured you to be a hot dog man.