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

No, the "military" does not use energy to determine effectiveness of small arms projectiles. The Army, or some parts, does have engineers that try to push "ft-lbs energy" because they can't wrap their minds around the realization that a mathematical equation can't solve everything. The army (and most of the military as a whole) are 30-40 years behind everyone else when it comes to knowledge of shooting, guns, and techniques.

USSOCOM, Navy Crane, the Marine Corps, the USAF, the FBI, and the rest of the DOJ all use damage based metrics, and ignore any discussion of "ft-lbs energy".









To know what a bullet will do in tissue at a certain velocity (not energy), you have to shoot it in tissue (or proper tissue simulate). Once you do that, who cares what "energy" it has. Conversely even if you know how much energy it has, you still do not know what it will do in tissue.

When it comes to what that bullet will do to an animal, thinking about ft-lbs energy is just adding something for the sake of adding it.

What does it matter how many ft-lbs energy it has if it creates the wound that you want? If it doesn't create the wound that you want, than why does it matter what the energy is?


It almost sounds like you're trying to use ft-lbs energy instead of impact velocity to determine something. Does Northfork bullets state that you need a certain ft-lbs energy for bullet upset and expansion?

2 holes is better than one.

Energy without suitable bullet performance is like horsepower without traction. Lots of potential, no work getting done. If no or little work is getting done then maybe energy could be viewed as an empty number. Or maybe you're just a shopping trip away from hooking that energy up and really having something.

On the other hand, the fanciest, most expensive,carefully selected, most highly promoted bullet can't do anything without energy. No matter what design efforts are made to optimize damage, sooner or later you reach a point where no further improvements are possible. You can't get something that isn't there. To keep up with the analogy, all the traction in the world wont do anything without energy. No energy, no work. No transfer, no work.

You have to have both. One's no good without the other. To argue that energy doesn't matter just means you're spinning your figurative wheels. And maybe your literal ones as well.

If you had two nosler partitions

Sectional density being equal.

Frangebility being equal

Construction being equal

Would a bullet with 20 percent more measurable energy be better or worse in probability of positive out come of harvesting large game or would it do predictabally worse?

. And why?

Due to the nature of the situation*** the difference would probably fall within the range of results netted by repeating the test using one or the other over again, rather than switching between the two. I'd say this would be especially true if the lower energy one was already well within a normal range of applicability.

For example consider a 300 Weatherby magnum used for hunting elk. (Well within normal range of use.) Comparing it to something else with 20% more energy over a series of shots probably won't show you much difference.



*** Game animals aren't ballistic pendulums or uniform test media.

Although I do not shoot a Weatherby, I laughed at your response thinking Roy would have had something to say and might have wanted to add discussion point #4.

Keep in mind that "Roy" was in the business of promoting the concept of his super-high velocity (for his time) cartridges.

And he was a damn good salesman.

Smoke
I was referencing the original post where the "widest wound channel" statement was made. Hydrostatic effect might want to be discussed. When you have a 165 or 180 gr projectile going thru a body cavity at
`3,000 fps, there are some other events that might want to be considered.

And away we go!!

ft-lbs energy DOES determine something. It determines the maximum amount of work (tissue/bone destruction) that can be done. A given value for ft-lbs also defines very specific combinations of bullet velocity and mass. For any given bullet velocity or mass, there is only one combination that will give it a particular amount of energy.

What it does NOT determine is the ACTUAL amount of work that will be done. You keep harping about velocity, but velocity alone determines nothing but velocity. Billions of sub-atomic particles pass through your body every second at near light speed, yet they do you no harm because they have such low mass. In other words, they have very low energy. When you talk about the destruction possible with a certain velocity, you also need to talk about the mass of the projectile. For a given velocity and mass, both momentum and energy (ft-lbs) are pre-determined.

Again, a given bullet's ft-lbs energy determines the maximum work (destruction) that it can do - regardless of the bullet's velocity or mass or construction. How much ACTUAL destruction is done depends on the amount of energy transferred to the target (the amount of work the bullet performs). This in turn depends on the time span of the energy transfer, the construction of the bullet and the types and amount of material in the target that the bullet passes through. 100,000 ft-lbs can be instantly and spectacularly lethal or it could be applied but never even noticed if applied over a sufficiently long time span.

If a bullet creates the wound I want, it clearly has enough energy to do so. If it does not create the wound I want, it MAY not have enough energy to do so or there may be other issues which prevent adequate transfer of the energy it does have.

Suppose you were hunting elk and had a choice of two cartridges, one which wioud deliver 2511 ft-lbs energy to the target and the other 374 ft-lbs. Suppose you also know one has an impact velocity of 2052 fps while the other impacts at 1568 fps - but you don't know which is which. You know nothing else about the loads - not the bullet diameter, construction, weight or velocity - nothing. Would you hesitate even for a moment to choose the 2511 ft-lb option?

What if you were offered a different choice between two different cartridges, again for elk. Say 125 yards. You know one has an impact velocity of 2052 fps and the other at 1568 fps. You also know one has an impact energy of 2511 ft-lbs and the other has 374 ft-lbs, but you don't know which is which and you know nothing else about them. In that scenario you might make a rather poor choice because velocity alone tells so little.

Like other tools, including velocity, energy is a tool that can be used and abused.

Let me respond this way...


Taken alone, without consideration of other factors, both velocity and energy are poor predictors of anything.

If I had to choose, with no other knowledge, I would choose energy as the predictor for the damage a bullet could do.

For a bullet of a given diameter, I'll again choose energy over velocity as the predictor because energy includes both mass and velocity.

For a bullet of a given mass and construction, there is no difference between using the two.

I don't have my reloading books. But just guessing it would be the difference between 257 Roberts and a 308. And a 30 30 and a 308.i will post data in a couple of days. I will get some .243 Andy .65 and 7. Mm and maybe some .35, 9.3 and 8 mm data also.

Up until the last three paragraphs, that post was about the most coherent thing you've ever said. Although it still doesn't make total sense.

How much energy do you need to stop a charging antelope?

Thanks Again. There are some who WILL NOT accept this fact of Physics.

Thanks to ALL who've 'tried' to explain the absolute necessity of E to accomplish our goals.
Regardless of bullets, arrows, rocks, whatever, ENERGY must be incorporate !!


Jerry

Well, thank you. It makes total sense if you have a good understanding of physics. Destruction of tissue and bone requires work (force applied over a distance), which requires energy, which requires both mass and velocity. Energy=1/2*m*(v*v). Velocity alone does nothing. Nor does mass without velocity.

As to the antelope, I'll take 1000 ft-lbs over 2000 fps if I know nothing else about the projectile. Light-speed isn't enough if the mass is too low.
2000fps is only 356fpe with a 40g bullet. 1000 ft-lbs means 4745fps with that same bullet.

With a 95g SST .243" bullet, 1000 ft-lbs means 2177fps, which corresponds to 315 yards if launched at a rather sedate 2925fps, which is what I used last year. 2000fps corresponds to about 849fpe with that bullet. In this particular case it shouldn't make a lot of difference if you go with 2000fps or 1000 ft-lbs - both should be adequate.

Daughter #1 and me with last year's doe, whose ownership was previously contested by the buck. Range was about 200 yards so something around 1250fpe and 2435fps were both more than enough. Pretty sure that would have stopped the buck as well.

Form,

why is there such a significant difference in reliable terminal effects between 5.56 and 338 Lapua? Let's pick an equal distance for both, say 800m.

You have the right idea, just not extreme enough.

The 2052fps and 2511 ft-lb numbers are, respectfully, for 125 yards with a .223 40g BT launched at 3000fps (22 K Hornet) compared to my "Rhino Blaster" .45-70 460g WFNGC loads, which launch at 1812fps.

For elk, I'll take the .45-70 all day, every day. And have. At 213 yards the 350g North Fork FN I used on a 6x6 bull retained about 1545fps and 1868fpe. The bullet obliterated a sections of a near leg bone and rib and shattered a far side rib before coming to rest under the hide. Velocity played a part, as did mass, as did bullet construction, as did the types and amounts of flesh/bone encountered. The bull did not drop at the shot but instead just stood there, immobile. As I was ready to fire a second round it just toppled over. Velocity wasn't very high but that 1868fpe did a lot of work destroying tissue and bone.

Light-speed particles hit and pass through our bodies mostly unnoticed. If velocity was all that mattered, mankind would not exist. Even if we were resurrected like Kenny, those particles would kill us billions of times each second. Velocity and mass BOTH matter. You're not going to kill anything with a bullet you keep in your pocket, no matter what its mass is.

Thanks for the laughs! There are some heavy thought processes going on with an absolute minimum of substance! Shaking my head...

You can play that game a couple of different ways. Consider two bullets with identical kinetic energy. The first is a 105 grain Berger VLD shot out of a .240 Weatherby at 10 feet from the muzzle.

The second is a 155 grain full metal jacket non-expanding bullet out of a .308, X distance downrange.

Identical kinetic energy but there's no doubt in my mind which one I'd rather be shot with. How about you?

You are comparing two bullets with distinctly different construction and each engineered to perform very differently. Given the choice, most people would wisely choose the .308 because it will be much slower (roughly 2552fps vx 3100fps) but also - and often primarily - because it is designed not to expand while the Berger is designed to spew up to 85% of its weight as shrapnel. I'd rather be hit with the .308/155g FMJ at 3100fps than the Berger at the same speed, even though the KE would be much greater.

As I've said before, using KE to compare bullets of vastly different construction is something of a fool's game. In this case, both bullets have the same maximum possible capability for destruction, based on identical KE, but their efficiency in transferring that KE to a flesh and bone target is very, very different.

Instead of shooting flesh and bone, suppose you want to pierce armor? I'll place my bets on a 150g AP round with identical KE to that of the .240WM/105g Berger.