Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Enough energy for elk?

Look at the moose. Knocked the hide right off of him !!!

JB, here's one of Phil's quotes

If you want more effect than a Big 30 or a 30-06 go to a 375 for a noticable difference and even then it must be put in the right place; but, the recoil makes precise placement more difficult

Wait a minute Mule Deer....

First off, I am not trying to get into an argument over this because it isn't going to change either of our approaches on killing elk. Plus, that is not what this forum is about in my opinion.
Second off, I am telling you what I have learned from my experiences killing big game just as you are telling me yours. I am all ears and will listen to others opinions and will listen to them even if i don't intend to follow. Plus I tend to add some of my engineering/physics experience and background.

I did not take a step from a 30-06 to a 325, but rather I used to do all of my big game hunting with a 7mm and have recently went to a 325 on elk and larger. The step I made is approximately the same as a step from a 30-06 to a 338...therefore it must be significant enough for your taste. In fact, I thought about going from the 7 to a 300, but that didn't make sense to me for the same reasons you stated. Therefore, I went up one more notch.

As for big game, I have taken 60+ whitetails in the midwest (mainly WI) with everything from a 20ga Remington 1100 to a 300 win mag and recurve bow to fancy compound. I have also taken 8 elk with my 7mm from 25 feet to 424 yards. There are many on here that have much more experience than I, but I wouldn't consider myself new to the sport either. The reason I decided to take a step up from my 7mm to a 325 was because I shot a nice bull with my 7mm at 144 yards quartering away not long ago and tucked in behind the last rib finding the bullet bedded in the hide in front of the far shoulder. The bull didn't go far, but what I didn't like is that when I hit this bull, it didn't flinch, run, look, buckle, blink or bat an eye. It just kept walking like nothing happened. Then after then about 15 steps it started the drunken stumble. The bullet did it's job, but I decided that I would like to go bigger for elk after that shot.

As for "shock wave", I am surprised by your disagreement about that. When you read about car accidents, and I say "read" because I hope and pray that noone on here has lost anyone close because of it, much of the major injuries and deaths are due to damage to internal organs even though the skin was never punctured. I firmly disagree, and I am sure the accident victims will as well, that it requires a permanent wound channel to kill someone/thing.

Assuming that the bullet does not pass though, absorbing 2000 ft lbs of energy, and the other factors that I have quoted earlier, in a localized area is pretty damaging.
I am sure you have experienced the sinario below:
The majority of times that I have shoot a big game animal though the chest, I found that the entire chest cavity to seem like poorly made jello when I gut them. This is in my crazy opinion not due only to the 0.308 to 1 inch diameter permanent wound channel but also due to the shock. I mean you decelerate a 200 grain bullet going 2500 ft/sec in a distance of 2 feet or less, and you are talking serious energy transfer.

But enough about physics. From my humble experience, dead is dead. Whether it be with a 30-06 (which I have 2 but prefer my other toys) or a 375 H&H, dead is dead. My point is only that I prefer the hold as many aces as I can before I pull that trigger.

Use the almighty .223 that is so well thought of around here.

That would be the .223AI, yo.... grin...

In films of bullets being shot into gelatin (semi-liquid) blocks, such as the Barnes TSX advertizements, the bullet retains virtually all of it's mass and expands to about 3/4", yet the wound channel created is 4-6"+ in diameter. That same bullet shot into dry wood will create a wound channel not much bigger than the diameter of the expanded bullet.

Shoot an empty aluminum beverage can and there will be a hole slightly bigger than the diameter of the bullet through the can. Shoot a can filled with a liquid and the can will literly explode.

Are these not examples of hydrostatic shock?

Animal tissue (except bone) is mostly liquid. When a moving solid object hits a liquid, two things happen: The liquid is displaced by the solid object, and the energy from the solid object is transfered to the liquid creating the rings or shock waves.

Liquids cannot be compressed. Energy is a function of a moving objects weight times it's velocity squared. The greater an objects velociy is at impact, the faster and more violent the energy transfer will be.

As was stated above, the shape and construction of the bullet determines the size of the hole made by the bullet and it determines how much energy the bullet transfers to the object it hits. A full metal jacket or a pointed solid bullet will penetrate deep or completely through smaller targets and only transfer part of their energy into the target. Expanding bullets are made to open and transfer maximum energy into the target.

When an expanding bullet hits an animal the moving bullet pushes a hole the same size as itself through the animal tissue. The energy of the bullet is transfered to the tissue, most of which is liquid, creating a high pressure shock wave in the liquid moving away from the bullet. Since the liquid cannot compress, it breaks the cell walls and ruptures the surrounding soft tissues creating a wound channel many times larger than the diameter of the bullet.

This is the effect of hydrostatic shock.

On larger animals, like deer and elk, this causes massive internal bleeding or bloodshot areas. On smaller animals like gophers of rockchucks, they can literally be blown apart.

Actually, they're not. Hydrostatic shock is a misnomer. It should be referred to as hydrodynamic shock, or just hydraulic shock. Static refers to a non-moving object, while dynamic refers to motion.

Other than that, I think you're right. I think that death is a mixture of permanent wounds combined with shock waves (especially when they hit and disrupt the electrical current in the CNS). What is the ratio between permanent damage and shock wave damage? 50:50? 60:40? I think it REALLY depends on the construction of the bullet as well as which tissue exactly the bullet hits.

Whatever. Put a good, expanding bullet through the vital organs and animals die. Who really cares why they die, they just do.

Klik: I didn't say they were not any good....what I was saying is that they seem to me to be all the same;try as I might I always found the differences between 30 cal magnums and 338 mags to be one of bullets as opposed to any magic of the bore sizes.

They all "kill" very much the same,or so it has seemed to me....

Once you hit 30 cal,the next sweet spot is 375 IMHO,especially today with fabulous, lighter 375 bullets that reach down into the range occupied by the 338's and perform just as well...while using the heavier bullets for Africa.

buffybr: Articulate post! Well stated

Cacciatore,sometimes elk just don't react to a hit, regardless what you hit them with;and that can include cartridges and bullets over 30 caliber as well.I hit a large bull running with a 300 Weatherby and 200 gr Partition(around the last ribs angling to the off shoulder,much like your 7 mag hit) that did not even flinch to the shot,but the off side shoulder was smashed to uselessness;he still went maybe 100 yards before I finished him. Seen the same from the 338/340.In each instance,there was little reaction to the hit.

I think this is true on angling shots from the rear more so than shots directed into the shoulders and chest,because you have initially hit nothing really vital.The last elk I shot was struck through the chest at 180 yards or so with a 7 RM;he collapsed at the shot...

I think we sort of "expect" animals to react from bullet strikes and if they don't our natural tendency is to think we need "more" rifle;and that somehow that will cure the problem. What you find out is, it doesn't.

A very experienced Idaho elk hunter I know will tell you that if you want "reaction" from elk to a bullet strike,fast immobilization, you had better go clear to 375 bore size,and use a fast opening,tough high velocity bullet giving wide frontal area(but high weight retention),creating a bigger hole and lots of trauma.Then you see the kind of damage that buffybr described in spades. The jump from 30 to 8mm,even 338, is not a big enough difference to see....don't get me wrong; they're all "good",just not that much "different" IMO.

First off Energy is NOT Transferred in a collision Momentum is transferred. Second Hydraulic pressure is the correct term,


A very good read on the subject,



Duncan MxPhearson's Ballistics Model Of Wound Trauma Incapacitation is the only "Model" that has actually been proven to work 100% of the time. The Model was proven by Dr. Martin Fackler President of the International Wound Ballistics Assn.

From the book

I didn't want to get into a discussion of wound channels here, becauseevery time anything like it is brought up, all the mistaken homemade hunter-theories get trotted out.

But the "shock wave" stuff set me off. This is the same sort of superstitious stuff that hunters talk about with no real knowledge.

First, as somebody already pointed out, there is no such thing as hydrostatic shock. The term should be hydrodynamic, because it involves moving liquid, not "static" liquid.

Second, this movement (not "shock") of liquid only takes place for a very short distance around the bullet. It can damage some very soft tissue, such as lungs, around the actual tearing of the bullet, but if this damage is severe enough, it is ALSO part of the permanent wound channel.

In addition, pieces of the bullet can make the permanent wound channel bigger. This is what happens when chunks of jacket and lead fly off--and the reason the permanent wound channel averages bigger from a "soft" bullet than one that retains all or nearly all of its weight.

The reason people die from massive internal injuries in car wrecks has nothing to do with bullet wounds. They die from getting crushed against car parts. Skin is highly flexible, and often doesn't break even though thee's massive damage internally.

And we ARE talking about the way bullets do their job. I never said that ONLY the hole made by the bullet is the permanent wound channel. But the permanent wound channel ISN'T bloodshot meat; that is mere bruising. The permanent wound channel is severely damaged vital tissue.

This can also be deceiving in some kinds of test media, notably gelatin. Yes, a bullet can tear gelatin for 6 inches or so around the hole. But this isn't the permanent wound channel. It's just the gelatin tearing because something pulled on it. Animal organs don't react in the same way. An elk's heart, for instance, doesn't tear because a bullet passed within 6 inches of it.

One of the best test materials for retaining the permanent wound channel is the soft wax used in the Bullet Test Tube. This gives a much better overall look at the permanent wound channel, since the wax doesn't tear like gelatin does.

Yes, bullets create a lot of "goo" inside the chests of animals, especially if the bullet is a semi-fragmenting type. This goo is blood that is starting to congeal, mixed with a little soft lung tissue. It is not harder tissues that have somehow magically been transformed into something vastly different by the magic of "shock waves."

There is a lot of imformation on the science of bullet wounds on the Internet, easily accessed by anybody who's interested. This is a lot more informative than the typical arguments we get here about hydrostatic shock waves and foot-pounds. Geez, according to some hunters these days, a bullet has to retain ALL its weight to kill quickly, which exactly the opposite of the truth.

Hunters have been the victims of manufacturer BS for many decades. Among them are the theoriesabout high velocity that got trotted out in the 1950's. This is when the entirely contradictory term "hydrostatic shock" was invented.

The early promoters of this theory claimed that high velociy pushed blood through veins and arteries like brake fluid goes through the brakelines in a car. This meant (they said) that you could shoot a big game animal anywhere with a high-velocity bullet, and the blood zinging through the blood vessels would short-circuit the brain, causing an immediate stroke.

Trouble was, the biggest promoter of this theory had only killed about a dozen deer when he came up with it. He went to Africa a little later to prove it extensively, and failed. Yet because it had been stated in print, thousands of hunters believed it long afterward.

I'll also state, once again, that my point wasn't that a bigger bullet doesn't make a bigger hole, but that thinking a .325 WSM is a major step up from the .30-06 is a similar byproduct of all the articles some gun writers have written over the years about how kinetic energy is the entire key to "killing power," and how some magic level of X foot-pounds is "required" for killing any big game animal, and that somehow tipping the KE factor from just under 2000 foot-pounds to just over 2000 will make a vast and noticeable difference.

And when concrete evidence is called for, there are plenty "examples of one" trotted out. Well, here's another. The three biggest bull elk I've killed were shot with a .300 Winchester Magnum and a 200-grain bullet at 75 yards, a .300 WSM and a 180 at 100 yards, and a .30-06 and a 180 at 250 yards. All were shot solidly in the chest. The two shots with the .300 magnums hit major bone, which supposedly helps things along considerably.

The bull that traveled the least distance was the one shot with the .30-06. No major bone was hit, and the kinetic energy was under 2000 foot-pounds. The kinetic energy from the 200-grain bullet at 75 yards was over 3500 foot-pounds, and the energy from the 180 at 1800 yards was just under 3000.

None of these bulls went very far, but the one shot with the .30-06 (also the biggest bull of the three) traveled the least distance after the shot, about 20 feet. So there are three examples of one, which contradict the theory of 2000 foot-pounds neatly.

I'd like to change to question to: Is there enough bullet and velocity for elk? Impact velocity below a certain level reduces the chances of expansion. Barnes bullets suggests 1600 fps, I'd like to use 1900 fps as a prefered level. A bullet will kill if it destroys vital tissue, so it helps to destroy more of it, with more diameter and more velocity, within reason. I lack vast knowledge of elk kills but I can illustrate my point. I killed a cow elk at 150 yards with a .35 Whelen using a 250 grain Barnes X at 150 yards, it ran off a plateau into a ravine, only some 75 yards but enough to make it interesting to recover. The second was a bull elk at 350 yards with a .308 Winchester using a 168 grain Barnes XLC BT, a high ballistic coefficent X bullet, now discontinued. It moved 25 yards out of the clearing it was in the crashed. Both were double lung shots, with modest bullet expansion, judging by exit wounds. I didn't break any shoulders, as I like to eat those. Lung tissue stew recipes aren't that common. Less expanion does kill but not as quickly. I'd take the Hornady Light Magnum 180 grain BTSP at 2900 fps or the Federal 180 grain Vital Shok loaded with Nosler Partition at 2880 fps. They are both at or above 2000 fps at 500 yards. A premium 165 grain bullet would work just fine at ethical elk hunting distances too. I like higher retained weight, although I can't justify it, since I've never recovered a rifle bullet. A couple of .40+ caliber pistol bullets recovered from big game, some after breaking shoulders, has proven to me that properer placement, plus modest diameter and penetration are more important than any energy calculations. Bullet intergrity matters, so I'd spend the few extra dollars on an excellent bullet, at least for the actual hunt. Check your zero at the distances you hunt, ballistic tables don't match your rifle necessarily.

Any 180-grain spitzer with a ballistic coefficient of .400 or higher will retain around 1900 fps at 400 yards when started at 2700 fps. Add a little velocity to that (easy to do with .30-06 handloads) and a higher BC, and retained velocity just goes up.

I didn't suggest that you did, I don't think, nor intend to. All I'm saying is that, statistically there is most probably obvious measureable differences between what 3o caliber and a 33 caliber do on live animals. However, since the "anomalies", the unusual cases where an animal either absorbs tremendous impacts without being visibly affected much, or is suddenly struck dead with relatively small impacts- since that range can easily overlap virtually completely for the range of cartridges we are talking about, it is easy to think they all work about the same. From a more objective viewpoint, if one has enough data to have an objective viewpoint, it would probably be evident that some work somewhat differently than others. Obviously even 223s work spendidly even on big animals when one can control enough of the necessary variables. But from what I've seen, the "real world" does throw enough of its own issues into the mix - and I'm not always willing to adjust for or control them, nor do I think most hunters will. Consequently, I think there can be advantages even with the range we are considering.

In my own case I have the 30 caliber needs covered with my '06s. Does a 300 Mag really add anything signifcant over what I already have? Sure, a bit I suppose. However, it is incrementally too small for me to worry about. (Of course, the loony in my realizes that an H&H version of a M70 turnbolt would be a useful addition, so I wouldn't sidestep that!) But my "rational" side says that if I want a rifle that will have a bit more reach I might as well also increase bullet weight and diameter as well. (And good folks like Hornady didn't hurt the rampant spread of loonyism when they suggest that their 225 SP can still carry 2000 pounds -one ton! of energy at 500 yards when delivered via the 340 Weatherby.)And while the 340 does seem to me to be significant enough in it's improvement over the 30-06 to be obvious to me, I've also seen how animals can "soak up" many times their scale weight in theoretical foot/pounds of energy from the bigger gun without showing much effect at all. That's where the "overlap" comes in.

Sometimes less is more. What was the distance the zebra was shot at that you remarked about earlier? Insufficient penetration due to high impact velocity, regardless of distance really, for that winny bullet. If that zebra were shot with the same rifle and load at 400 yds, and hit in the exact same place chances are penetration would have been much more satisfactory.

Point being no one needs energy figures, hydro-whatever studies, marketing B.S., or internet elk experts with examples of one or three. There are to many variables, experience and good old been there done that over and over trumps all that other crap.

Klik:
Sure; if bore diameter and bullet weight did not matter AT ALL,we would not hear talk from seasoned pro's about how 40 cal and up seems to have a measureable effect on real heavy game,like buffalo, etc.over smaller cartridges.Such game just requires bigger holes through vitals to succumb quickly.

With elk-sized stuff, we see so much testimony and personal experience espousing such a wide range of cartridge/bore sizes working effectively,maybe the old wapiti is not as tough as we have been led to believe

If I were forced to run around for a couple years,culling Cape buffalo with a 30/06 and a 340 Roy, the differences might become distinguishable, if you get my drift...

Just to be a .325 homie, the same logic that says that the step from 30-06 to .325 WSM is insignificant, says that the step from .325 to .338 WM is insignificant... Just sayin'...

Actually, from a pure physics point of view, energy does get transferred in a collision, it just isn't conserved as is momentum.

MD,
Good post, and I share a common concern with you: Too many hunters come up with theories and try to pretend to be physicists, but lack the actual education in physics needed to really understand what's going on.

With a reasonable background in harmonic physics, I would agree with everything you said, except for a slight deviation in one point. When an object strikes a fluid, there is a shock wave created. NOW, whether or not this shock wave actually makes a difference in significantly damaging the animal's vital processes, I won't say. But, the fact that there is a shock wave present is undeniable. Sometimes, with enough energy, pressure and force, a shock wave can be very damaging and extend over great distances; a nuclear shock wave or a concussion grenade for example.

Now, again, I can't say for sure how much effect this has on the death of an animal, but given that the nervous system functions through electrical current, which can be seriously influenced by shock waves, I would venture to guess that if the "hydraulic pressure" or the shock wave comes close enough to the CNS to affect the electrical activities in the brain, it can cause death. I believe that this is the reason that animals can be killed by a bullet passing VERY close to the spine or brain without actually permanently damaging either.

There's more to the functioning of the body than just the flesh and blood that it is made up of. There is a very important electrical aspect that allows the heart to beat in a regular rhythm (eg. electrocution and defibrillation), the brain to function, etc.

Just a few thoughts to add to the fire