Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 10,000 Swedish Moose died to teach us this lesson.

They cannot be seperated in the sense that if you have one you have the other, the converse also being true. But they are different mathematical expressions to model different aspects of dynamics.

You can theoretically move a bullet forward through tissue slow enough that you will almost have no transfered energy (energy only goes from one form to another), and likewise you can hit something fast enough that penetration is nil and the energy is completely spent changing forward direction, sending impacted media airborne, making sound waves and generating friction/heat.

My point was less of a challenge to your example than to show that this suble interplay explains a large part of what is happening upon impact. You are right, energy and momentum can't be seperated, despite what some have suggested in this thread. I can tell that I'm not communicating effectively.

Jywalker,

I would say that lack of blood definitely has something to do with the permanent wound channel!

Please, no disrespect but again, you effectively took the bullet out of the comparison. This is an example of two heavy/slow bullets that thrive on momentum to do the job. I'd pay to see the data that compares a 300 Weatherby/ 165 AB vs. a 308 with a 200 grain Failsafe.

And if wound channel size is the tellall then why was the lethality the same. The wound channel sizes were the same? Big animals do absorb energy well and slow for caliber bullets don't utilize muzzle energies well. I'll say again, energy transfer is what happens when penetration proceeds to slowly for the bullet being used. Energy is the plan B of the dynamics. That's why it's not always relevant.

Since moving away from prefering the many magnums I've owned and still own - towards the many mild "standard velocity" cartridges I own, I've noticed as distinct, and, for me, shocking lack of difference on the manner in which the animals I've shot, have died. For all the muzzle blast, heat, and kick the magnums generate - I'd hoped the observable differences on game would have been greater.

Statistically speaking, I'm sure the results of my own lifetime of hunting in B.C. would probably shrink to what statistitions would call "insignifigance" or perhaps "insufficient data" in regards to whether any of my own observations form an accurate opinion on either bullet perfromance, or cartridge performance. The fact I'm a "nobody" in the hunting world doesn't help, in regards to gettting by own observations listened to, or accepted by others either. Around my own real campfires - my friends listen. But, that might speak more to their quality - as men , than my quality - as an authority on anything.

But, there were "somebodies" who wrote things I believed in and found to be true too. One of these men, that I read while growing up, a man I had huge respect for - was Finn Aagard. He, like my other hero Jack o'Connor, seemed to write things that agreed with my own observations - and they both wrote in such a way that felt that you were a part of their own adventures. In one article that I read, Finn really laid it out on the line.

I know I read it, but I can't for the life of me, find it now - but I know I read - somewhere - where Finn Aagard said that based on his written records and his memories, he couldn't say - with any degree of certainty - that he could tell the difference in killing power of the rifles between the animals he shot with a .375 H&H, and those he shot with a 30-06 Springfield. The one caveat, I believe, was that he was using "good" 300 grain bullets in the .375 and "good" 220 grain bullets in the 30-06.

I think there is a lesson to be learned here - but the stubborn among us will continue to find it lost on them.

They already "know" the truth - studies be damned!

Sure, no question blood loss contributes to medical shock, probably every time, but medical shock can occur without blood loss or permanent wound channel. I've had my share of "undeserved DRTs." My concern is that we might conclude erroneously that permanent wound channel is the only determinator in quick animal death.

I think a realistic conclusion would be that while other factors may occasionally present advantages, the only factor we can count on consistently, with today's bullets and velocities, is the permanent wound channel.

gmack...

I think we are spiralling toward violent agrement...

Tissue breaks down (is crushed) when the applied pressure exceeds its physical strength. Force is the time rate of change of momentum, and pressure is force per unit area. So the rate at which momentum changes is one critical thing to watch. It is what creates the wound channel. If the rate of change is too slow, then the tissue will not be destroyed, as you correctly point out.

Maybe that is the key to the whole conversation. Over what distance within the animal can the bullet provide sufficient (momentum rate of change)/(frontal area) to create a wound channel?

Maybe we're all saying the same thing cause these last three quotes prove my point. Kinetic Energy is what disintegrates a bullet in a chest cavity, is what can make a wider permanent wound channel.

4 years of engineering school wasn't a complete waste. I still contend that if energy is not accounted for in your model to predict killing power you are making a reasoning error. And by power I do mean, how fast an animal expires, not how far it travels.

Yes, I think we did communicate.

Gee's I leave for a while and well I get to read post like this one. I admit I am not much of a Moose hunter, ever single one I ever shot ended up knee deep in water. That Study is just that a study. In this case Moose in Sweden. It could be White tails here or the Elk one than I read about back in the 1970's. It all boils down to pretty much one thing put a reasonable hunting bullet in the right place and the game gives up the ghost pretty quick. I have shot all manner of game with all manner of cartridges, and well it don't much matter much other than being able to put the bullet were it needs to go. As for the 378 Weatherby, Its a god awful cartridge, some people for some odd reason like it I guest. Then again there is a friend of mine, he lives in Moose Heaven down in the Wrangell St Elas Area of Alaska and all he shoots is a 7mm -08 and 140 gr Nosler Partitions. Collects a Moose ever year and a box of cartridges will last a good 15 years. He dose two things, he hunts and never shoots unless the shot is right and one more thing I noticed about him, he is very calm and he likes to get close. He may have something there.

I do trust Hagel, and I do trust the science of ballistics. Testimony that defies ballistics and my own personal observations I tend to distrust, regardless of the source.

I do trust in the fact that the stuff I've whacked with a 300 Win. Mag. has gone down harder and faster than the stuff I've shot with the 30-06 and has exhibited a larger wound channel as well. Likewise, I trust those who have shot buffalo with the 458 Win. Mag. and the 460 Wby. who state that buffalo go down harder and more reliably after being hit with the Lott, and who also state that buffalo go down harder after being hammered with the 416 Weatherby in lieu of the 416 Taylor.

And I'll also trust in the testimony of those law enforcement officiers who say that the 357 Sig irons-out bad guys more convincingly and reliably than the slower 9mm Luger.

Same science applies to all of the above........

AD

Four pages worth now and I'm wondering if I'm the only one who sees what should be the obvious.......

Just about any cartridge will kill game when placed right with the right bullet. No cartridge necessarily kills better, simply because dead is dead......I could care less if my elk runs 5 more feet before he gives up the ghost.

A 300 Winchester Magnum will deliver more energy with a 180 grain bullet at any distance than a 30-06 will with the same 180 grain bullet.......that we know.....But and it's a tough pill to swallow for some I'm sure, it's energy isn't necessary to kill anything on this continent.

The study in Sweden is interesting indeed, but enlightening.......not really. Tough to except for some who believe that the use of high-velocity, larger-bore calibers are "necessary", but fall right into line with what I've seen, done, and heard about all my life...

Will this study help to enlighten magnum lovers that they really don't need the chit kicked out of them, while dispensing a 100 grains of powder-per-trigger pull, flinching madly at the range, and possibly having half-moon scars above their eyes???? Hell no, but it'll give them something to argue about for years to come.....ahh the fun of at all.

When I started reading this thread I remembered a man I met at a very young age who became an in-law of mine, via my oldest brother's marriage. He's a pretty feeble ole boy now, but not too long ago he killed a very nice bull in the Tioga Unit of Western Oregon. His grand daughter, who happens to be my sister-in-law was quick to report the news of his successful hunt and when she told my brother and I of what happened, I was a little amazed to say the least and decided to make my way over to his place post haste.
What I found was one of the largest Roosevelt Bull Elk I'd ever seen, having 8, nearly-identical points on each side and a pre-64 308 featherweight sitting next to it. That was pretty good news to say the least, but not the biggest shocker of them all.
It was at the time of processing the meat, that we realized that grandpa Ray wasn't the only feller who had flung led at this big boy. In fact, this bull had taken at the very least, 27 seperate slugs over the years that we recovered, most of which lying in the kill zone, with only a couple that showed up in the hindquarters. Calibers ranged from .6mm-.375, with most being 30 caliber and a couple we figured were from the same gun.
He mounted the bull in his living room and put the slugs in a coffee can, indicating that he planned on mounting them too, but whether he ever did, I dunno...

What he did do was hit the bull where no one else had.....In the withers one time with a measly 308 and 165 grain corelocks. He dropped like a rock, just like every other bull he shot in the same place. His father before him was hunting 30 years before there was even a season in this state and had the largest collection of antlers I'd ever laid eyes on. He told him as a young boy that you didn't shoot for heart and lungs on an elk....ya shoot for the withers and brake him down.
I don't know for sure how many elk that Great Granpa Ross shot or Grandpa Ray, but they used 25-35's, 300 savages, and 308s well placed........

It also is worth remembering that these comparisons are with one lethargic animal species which has a characterisic reaction to being shot.

The opposite example is the experts on cape buffalo who also judge dissimilar results again, because of characteristics of a single species' reaction to being shot.

Aussies are guilty of it when citing the sambar, a 600 pound deer that will not go down to the shot in most instances, unless you are using a .458 as used by Ken Pearce, who is probably the world authority.

Keep an open mind and remember, as boring and repeticious as it may sound, shot placement kills with more authority that foot pounds, "in most cases".

AGW

Amen.

I would also only add that of course kinetic energy is involved. Without it our bullets would not penetrate, or expand. But kinetic energy is only useful when it makes a hole in the right place. If it does, then we have meat.

However, it is NOT a direct indicator of killing power. I know this all too well, having applied an awful lot of kinetic energy to couple of animals with little effect....

I once read a artical on "killing power" some 30 or so years ago. I believe Bob Milek wrote it but my rememberer ain`t to good on that stuff anymore, likely wrong.
The idea was that if a given amount of energy was required to kill say an elk, then any cartridge with that capability would do. It went on to state if 1500 fp were the requirement and we had a 30-30 load that delivered that amount at 50 yds it would do as well as a 30-06 with a similar bullet at 300 yd or a 300 Win mag would do at 400+ yds. The same could be said of the 7x57 vs 280 vs 7mm mag, ect.

The point was, added velocity killed no better within a caliber but only extended the range the cartridge was capable of giving similar performance. Once the important damage was done inside the animal any extra energy was wasted on maiming hide, muscle or the hill side down range and added nothing more.

I thought it an interesting theory when I saw it.

Lots of interesting stuff. I think saying the temporary wound channel has no effect on killing power is not exactly true. When a high velocity round hits, the temporary cavity can be up to 30x larger than diameter of the bullet. Everything else being equal, the higher the velocity the larger the temporary cavity. As others have mentioned, the elasticity of tissue will generally shrink this back down to somewhere close to the original diameter of the projectile. However, for some portion of the channel the permanent cavity can be several times larger than bullet diameter for a high velocity round (because it can only stretch back so far)until the bullet slows down enough such that the permanent cavity basically equals bullet diameter. So, the vessels or whatever remote organs may not be affected by the temprorary cavity, but the larger the temporary cavity the larger the permanent cavity. Again, tough to tie this directly to killing power just pointing out that permanent wound channel is not necessarily only going to be as wide as expanded bullet diameter and totally disconnected from KE (i.e. why 300 weatherby and 30 carbine are not equal).

Lou

I don't know about shock, I don't ever count footprints between shot and dead, and I don't know about moose in Sweden.

What I do know is that I've killed moose nearly every year I've lived in Alaska - which is half of my 50 years- and that in some years I've been involved in more than one moose killing enterprise.

The only thing I've killed more of have been caribou and those kills number over 100. From the kills of the latter, I figure I've seen a discernable difference between cartridges and calibers. I don't know, but I suppose it applies to Alaskan moose as well. I do not believe I have ever seen shock though. One of the most dramatic kills was one of only three shot/drops I've experienced. It was a big bull which was struck by a 33 cal X bullet in a straight side-to-side shot which broke both shoulders or legs. That animal went straight down but fought mightily to regain its feet not aware that its legs had suddenly been made useless. If an animal would have know shock, I would think that one would have. Needless to say, it died shortly from the hole in its lungs. Another bull, a second of the shot/drops I've experienced, fell after a bullet passed near its kidneys and right next to its spine for a distance. The clear lethality of the rather poorly placed shot was difficult to discern. However, that animal went down from a trot, nearly landing on its back.

In killing more than two dozen caribou with both the 6mm and the 7mm-08 each, it has seemed to me that the little 7 puts animals the size of caribou down significantly quicker than does the 6. That is with cup and cores of 100 grains in the 6 and 140 grains in the 7. Mostly the 6mms have been Pro-Hunters while the 140 have been Interlockeds with some others of similar weights mixed in. I cannot say one kils better than the other, just that the bigger bullet puts the animals down quicker overall.

When it come to moose, I don't think there is a much question about the lethality of cartridges. Most, within reason, are. There are a lot of variables that can affect how well or how quickly. Many of those variables are not addressed in the data given. Of course, neither is the exact nature of the average Swedish moose. I do know something about the size and make-up of the Alaskan version however. I don't know if Swedish moose are larger or smaller, although I suspect they are not quite as big. What I do know is that even though I have used the 6mm, 6.5, and 7mm in the smaller (approx 308 capacity) cases, and have seen even sub-legal 22 CF and RF used - and quite effectively I might add, still, I do not believe, based on what I've seen, that these cartridges are as effective in putting big animals down as quickly as larger cased and bulleted cartridges are. Of course bullet placement is even more important, followed by bullet performance. I don't base that on 10,000 pieces of data but I don't believe it (the more prolific Swedish data) invalidates my own experience either.

I do think the Swedish study data is interesting. I think it would be more meaningful if more of the variables were known. (How much of the data involves military ball ammo? What are the bullet types? etc) I'm sure that similar results might be found at various scales based on various animal types. Obviously, one can debate the how and why that it happens; however, the one thing that really isn't debatable is the fact that a lethal hole in an animal will kill it regardless what cartridge the bullet originates from.

I have never even shot at a tree rat much less a big game animal unless I have an unobstructed shot. I can't imagine shooting through brush much less TREES, trying to bring down a moose.

Horse power in a car is what makes it get up to speed faster. You can get to 100 mph with 100 hp but you can get to 100 mph faster if you apply 300 hp. Likewise, use of the term killing power implies that the work of killing is done faster.

Numerous examples of killing with various cartridges that show similar killing power is analogous to watching a 100 hp car on the road side by side with a 300 hp car. Both will get you to 100 mph, however, until you stomp on the gas the performance will look the same.

What makes use of the "extra" energy, stomps on the gas, is bullet construction in reaction to the unique tissue density encountered. And the "extra" energy is not always extracted since the bullet by nature will always seek to retain energy, not dump it. Dumping it is the action of kinetic energy transfer to tissue and/or the form shifting loss to sound and heat/friction.

If a hunter opines that his 300 mag kills faster than his 06 to he's probably using a bullet that can utilize the "extra energy" and is placing the shot where the marriage of bullet and tissue characteristic sets up the scenario for a destructive energy dump in a vital area.

So who do you believe now? The GW who wrote that kinetic energy makes no difference, then said well maybe it can make a difference and finished with an example where energy does make a difference and/or do you believe the field results summary filled with unknown and uncontrolled variables; or do you put your faith in High School physics, make all mathematical models fit - even though you may piss off a lot of people. I know the answer.

A couple of comments about permanent wound channel:

Is it the volume of the wound channel or the surface area of it? If the latter, you get much less of an effect from increasing bullet diamater.

Even if it's the volume, as for the .338 bullet having 0.061" greater frontal area than the .308 bullet, compare that with a vital area (lungs from the side?) which might be 100 square inches. The extra diameter only takes out 0.06% more of the vital area, an amount which I would think would be insignificant. That would explain why the field studies seem to indicate that caliber is not important.

It seems logical to me that if you stick anything through both lungs--.25 bullet, .338 magnum, broadhead arrow, or steel rod--the animal is going to bleed out and die within a very short time.

Klik,

It is interesting that both the examples you give of moose dropping right away are with hits either breaking both shoulders, or near the spine. But this is not exactly breaking news (if you parden the pun). Shots that break down an animal, or pass even near the spine, have been known to drop animals of all sorts. Whether they KILL any quicker is debatable. I have seen animals dropped by such shots try to rise or even just lift their heads, before eventually succumbing.