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

LOL It's probably the only time in our lives that we will see those 2 words together. (dumping and kinetic) So let's savor the moment. A toast to a new guru at the campfire.

No. Lift comes from the whole wing. Typically there is suction on both the top and bottom surfaces, with more suction on the top. Here by suction I mean the static pressure at the wing surface is less than the ambient pressure of the undisturbed air.

A wing acts kind of like an air pump. As it travels through the air its net effect is to push air downwards, and the reaction side of the action-reaction equation is a net upward force on the wing.

A propeller or helo rotor is simply a rotating wing. The fundamental principle of generating upward force by accelerating air downwards is the same.

Sturgeon:...uh....sorry,won't let it happen again must have momentarily lost my mind......

Bernouli always wins....

2 things with moose hunting in this thread.

1...Never go for the hump.Hit em too low and you'll shoot through the dead spot.I can't recomend that shot.

2...The only difference on a moose between the 30-06 and 300 Win is the 300 will shoot farther thats it.

Harvested many with both can't tell the difference at all except on longer shots.It drops less.

I know I'm gonna hate myself..... note to self: Don't contradict your favorite GW in 08.

Quickest kills is the same thing as saying greater killing power. Are we led to believe that a 338 with a different load, same approximate KE, has greater killing power but loads of different KE don't. There's a difference in the same round but no avantage to a 338 RUM?

The fast magnums flatten trajectory.... that's all their good for? Does that imply that the effective range of the non-magmuns is equal. An 06 with a 220 at 500 yards kills like a 300 mag with a 180 at 500?

An arrow at low KE is effective so a bullet at same low KE must be equally so. An arrow at low KE is proof that KE doesn't matter. Does anyone think that's true?

An unscientific summary of field observations is proof that differences in killing power don't exist? A water jug displays the differences in KE but an animal of 75% water soaks up all the energy difference without damage? A bullet can send out a shock wave at the muzzle but its impossible inside an animal.

Maybe I've gone out of my field of expertise trying to prove that KE was good for more that nominal wound channel but I see too many holes in a killing model that can't explain or doesn't account for the many possible uses of available KE.

Caution, these are my interpretations of whats been said, I hope I haven't put words in anyones mouth or overinterpreted anyones statements. That would be counter productive, hey, like the pack mentality jokes.

You think a propeller is simply a rotating wing?

that one threw me to. i thought that was why a prop was called a prop, not wing it was my understanding that the air traveling over the wing was moving faster than the air under it. lift is created. this having nothing to do with propulsion..

woofer

Wow! BCBrian asked about finding an article in a magazine and in matter of a couple of days people are talking abot helicopters! Talk about Attention Deficit Disorder!

I just watched a TV show where I guy put four .338 Federal's into a large Moose and the animal acted as if it had taken four mosquito bites. Tells me more about moose than about the cartridge. The Moose finally ran about 30 yards and pilied up. They are tough critters.

I remember the article on the Moose/ Cartride survey as well and the point that remained with me is how the 30-06 and .308 were essentially identical in terms of results recorded. Owning several of both, I don't have a prejudice for one over the other - but I also get a little frosted when the 30-06 crowd tries to belittle the .308. Unless your into 200 Gr. .30 caliber bullets, there just isn't any difference. If you like those 200 grainers, you probably should be using a .300 Magnum of some sort anyway.

Now back to Helicopters!

Wow!!
Airplane wings, propellers, energy, 338s`, and 250 gr`ers. This thread has covered almost everything except where 1260 missing moose are. We`re looking for the 338s missing "killin` power" and overlooked a pile of missin` moose.
Maybe the answer is once you poke a hole through the lungs of a moose it only has so long on this earth, no matter what size the hole or whether it was done with a sharp stick or RPG. Maybe they like to amble a little so they take that last walk, but are as lazy as they look and only like doing ~50 yd at a time.

6.5x55------------2,792
7mm Rem. Mag.-----107
.308 WCF---------1,314
.30-06------------2,829
.300 Win. Mag.-------27
8x57----------------575
.338 Win. Mag.-------83
.358 Norma----------219
9.3x57--------------134
9.3x62--------------449
.375 H&H----------- 211
---------------- = 8740 dead moose`s?

I thought we were learning from 10,000 moose`s?
I think Savage 99 found one of them tied up (better turn it loose, DNR frowns on this I believe) and looking a bit peaked although still kickin`. I don`t know if we can count that one or not, but we are still a few steaks short of 10,000 animals. Maybe once we find them we`ll have a answer. We`ve all agreed we can`t come to a conclusion without all the data.

Analysis Paralysis!! grin

Not just me, the whole aerospace industry;

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/propth.html

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/props/TH18.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Rotary-Wing-A...ewski/dp/0486646475/ref=pd_sim_b_title_2

Don, the secret to lift isn't Bernoulli, its Kutta;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutta_condition

Its the Kutta condition that generates that wonderful velocity distribution, resulting in differential suction. That sharp trailing edge makes a big difference in wing performance.

Honestly now. This isn't a dig at anyone please don't think it is but how many guys who posted on this thread have actually killed a moose?

Answer Honestly this is a no shame question?

gmack,

I'll look at your points one by one, avoiding all references to propellers.

Different bullets can make different size holes, and these are not directly correlated to kinetic energy.

One of the quickest-killing bullets I ever used in the .338 was the 200-grain Speer spitzer, but it had to be loaded down a little, to 2700 fps or so. Otherwise, at close range it could expand too fast and not penetrate, thus affecting how it killed. But at 2700 it pentrated and put a big hole through stuff, on average killing more quickly than, say, the 230 Fail Safe or any other bullet to penetrate a LONG way. And at 2700 fps, it developed LESS kinetic energy than standard .338 loads....

From what I have seen, expanding bullets will kill well out to where they still expand well. So that is pretty much the effective range, whether we are shooting a .308 Winchester or a .300 Weatherby. Of course, there is still the question of HITTING the animal correctly.

A bullet with the same kinetic energy as an arrow won't penetrate deeply enough to kill big game. In fact, if the same weight as an arrow, at the same velocity, it probably wouldn't even break the skin. So once again we are back to penetration.

Please go back and reread what I wrote in at least a couple of places. Certainly differences in killing power exist, but if an expanding bullet goes through both lungs (and perhaps the top of the heart, or the blood vessels leading from it) then in all probability the animal will remain standing (or running) for at least 10 seconds or so. This is how long it takes blood pressure to drop in the brain.

But some people apparently expect animals lung-shot with a .375 H&H (4500 or so foot-pounds at the muzzle) to drop in half the time as animals shot with with a .300 Savage (2250 foot-pounds). It does not work that way, due to too many other factors. If it did, then this thread wouldn't have even started, and there would be nothing to debate.

As explained earlier, shooting a 1-gallon water jug (8 pounds of incompressible water inside thin, limited-stretch plastic) is not the same as shooting a 200-pound deer, 700-pound elk, or 1500-pound moose. The water in these animals is inside stretchable organs, often separated from each other or containing (in the case of lungs) a lot of air.

Probably the closest animal we have to a 1-gallon water jug is a young rockchuck that's been eating lots of fresh, irrigated alfalfa. These will explode like a water jog--but oddly, are more likely to explode when shot with a .220 Swift (1600 foot-pounds at the muzzle) than a .416 Rigby (three times as much muzzle energy and eight times as much bullet weight).

So I stand by what I wrote, and you quoted: "There is no DIRECT correlation between kinetic energy and how quickly a big game animal will die from a good heart/lung hit." Or even explode from a mid-section hit.

Also, I do not believe any of us so far have developed a "killing model." Maybe a radio-controlled miniature airplane with a grenade aboard? (Dang, and I wasn't going to mention propellers!)

I don't think bullet velocity, weight, energy has anything to do at all with killing.

It is bullet spin that actually does the killing.

Currently working with a wildcat that will achieve velocites of around 50 to 127.87 FPS. We currently working with rates of spin. I should say rate of spin that is off the wall in revolutions per foot. Not at liberty to give any rate of spin figures as of yet. The metallurgy for projectile and barrels is there courtesy of today's high technology.

The goal was to design a cartridge that was lethal, with as light a projectile as possible, very low sound or sonic signature, that would employ the energy as spin to burn the way through a game or predator animal. Early testing was promising, with very little noise on firing, Actually a sound signature less the popping the tab on a beer can. The sonic signatures on the spin has been the most difficult part in solving. We have conquered the problem of a ear splitting scream with tweaks on the projectile such as grooves, ogives, boat tail fins, etc. The most successful research has been in the sonic range that only dogs can hear. This can be a very useful attribute, as if you dog is howling, you know someone is shooting at you. Due to the slow velocity, you then have the option Think of it as starting a fire with stick and string.

Initial testing shows great promise, of course with the usual tweaks for wind drift, bullet drop tables, prototype testing in arms. Just the usual problems, and hope to market in ten to twelve years, when tweaking and testing accomplished.

Geeeezzzzzzzzz, hope this doesn't even more tangents,

Twenty five years ago, I worked for Volvo and visited Sweden once a month or more for planning meetings. While eating lunch at the Halared test track one day, I overheard two test drivers discussing (in Swedish) what could only be a hunting story. I asked what they'ed been hunting and the answer was "Elk" (in Europe, moose are called elk).

A lengthy discussion ensued in which I leaned that the most popular "elk" cartridges were 6.5x55 (no suprise here), the 30-06 (suprised me) and, the 8x57. These guys did not handload, but generally used Norma factory loads. One was partial to the 6.5 while the other liked the 8mm (usual debate, just a different country).

As an aside, I was always cautioned to drive carefully, as the elk would frequently run across roads and be struck by cars, often fatal to all involved: the car, the elk and the car occupants. I saw the result once just north of Lake Vanern, near Karlstad. The car was totaled and the occupants were badly injured.

Perhaps the 2 hunters should have listed the elk killers as Volvo, 6.5x55. 30-06 and (in fourth place) 8x57!

MD,

You have communicated your points well. KE, no "direct" correlation, differences in killing power exist, I agree. You are a gentleman and a scolar. Thanks.

Isn't high spin same as high rotational energy?

Yeah, that's exactly how they define it! Thanks for the links