I posted this in the Handguns and Hunting Rifle Forums so as many people as possiable would have an opportuniy to read this.

Read this with an open mind and see what a wound ballistics expert has to say.

Webmaster's Note:Original source here:

On Terminal Performance

jwp475:
Everyone should read an article such as this. I trained myself years ago to IGNORE, the foot pounds of energy figures. IMO, It's not how much energy there is, but how it is expended that matters.
Smitty of the North

Precisely. Energy in this context is merely the potential to do work. Depending upon the efficiency of your widget, anywhere from 0% to <100% of it ends up doing the work you wanted it to do.

The physics involved tell us that penetration depends on Momentum (Mass x Velocity). Wound cavity depends on
Energy (Mass x Velocity x Velocity). As Elmer Keith put it
"It is the size and depth of the hole".
Good luck!

IMO tissue damage is what kills animals. For instance often times in light skinned game like deer a balastic tip kills much faster than stoutly constructed bullets that penatrate deeper.
The key to fast kills is to use a bullet that is right for the application and to place it in the right area.

This sounds like more "Great Motherhood Theory" mumbo jumbo. Fortunately, we live in a world in which wishful thinking and illogical conjecture cannot rule.

If foot-pounds of energy doesn't matter, then I guess the science of physics doesn't matter, either <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />!

If FPE doesn't matter, then I guess we could all get by with a 30 M1 carbine instead of a 30-06, right?

Or does FPE only matter up to a certain point, then it doesn't all of a sudden mean anything, or what?

Bob Hagel said it best: "No cartridge kills any better than the cold, hard ballistic tables say it will." Hagel couldn't have been more right, and his experience mirrors what I've seen for myself over the last three decades. When it comes to understanding what works and what doesn't work on big game, I'll take Hagel's brand of experience over "Dr. WizDumb's" brand of experience any day of the week.............

AD

Old man Whelen himself stated that the ability of a cartridge to kill was dependent entirely of the nature of the wound channel it makes. I think in a roundabout way this is what this article is getting at.

I think.

As far as the physics go kinetic energy versus momentum is a very tricky subject when applied to non-ideal environments. You cannot go the distance with either. Rather both have to be solved simultaneously. And this is really hard because of the lack of friction coeffs, momentum before and after collision with bone, etc.

All that super technical stuff that a man would have to know to solve the system accurately. All of which we don't have.

So we argue instead. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Will

[quote]If foot-pounds of energy doesn't matter, then I guess the science of physics doesn't matter, either ! [quote]

Penetration is what kills,how much game have you killed with no pentration??

How can you argue with a wound ballistics expert???

An NFL runing back that runs a 10 secound 100 yards is traveling at the rate of 30 feet per secound this equates to 3504 foot pounds of energy (his speed alone, no one else's) so if foot pounds of energy is so deadly at this level WHY ARE THE FOOTBALL PLAYERS NOT KILLED??

When a police officer is shot in the chest and the bullet hits his proof vest he is not klled nor is he serous injred yet te foot pounds of energy is the same as whe there is no vest.
Why is he not hurt?

Answer to both is, NO PENETRATION

AD
I'm favorably inclined to Bob Hagel's work, but is there a corollary to your quote that would say, "Some cartridges do not kill as well as the ballistic tables would indicate."
T

Would it follow that we all should be shooting solids?

As someone already stated above, Energy figures in ballistics represent the total work available that can be done to an animal. IMO the ideal preformance happens when you find the bullet under the hide on the far side, after having gone thru a vital area, fully expanded. Penetration and complete energy transfer in the right area is what drops then right there.

GM

[quote
How can you argue with a wound ballistics expert???
[/quote]

Well, in this case it is pretty easy.

Proof by repeated assertion is common in the social sciences, but not in my brand of physics.

The original article is a confusing jumble of arrows, handgun bullets in humans, muzzleloaders and who knows what all else.

I only know one author who has a science-based, consistent theory of wounding, and it is not the author above.

Other than that, it is OK. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

jim

I can't say that wound channel and its size don't have a direct effect on killing. However, basic understanding of animal physiology also tells you that "there is more than one way to skin a cat". We all know that you can kill with a precisely placed very small hole and almost zero energy transfer IE an icepick to the jugular or aorta. You can also kill with nothing but "energy transfer" IE blunt force trauma that doesn't create a wound channel at all.

"Shock" is as likely to cause death in many cases as any other physioligical reason. Shock can be induced by pain, interuption of the body's eletrical or circulatory system, etc. Energy transfer is not a "myth" but it is but one way to effectuate death in creatures, and when done with proper bullet selection, you can combine the best of both worlds of wound channel size and energy transfer...THIS my friends is when you get "bang flops"

The foregoing reasons are why we can kill deer, elk, and moose and the like with either a .270 or a 375H&H or many in between that rely more on energy transer or wound channel or both.

Fackler's research, though not completely flawed, started with his trying to prove his own preconceived notions rather than from a "lets see what we can see" point of veiw.

Well, in this case it is pretty easy.

Proof by repeated assertion is common in the social sciences, but not in my brand of physics.

The original article is a confusing jumble of arrows, handgun bullets in humans, muzzleloaders and who knows what all else.

I only know one author who has a science-based, consistent theory of wounding, and it is not the author above.

Other than that, it is OK. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

jim [/quote]

Dr. Fackler is a wound ballistics expert and is or at least was head of the Army's wound ballistics

I think the author could have done a better job of making his point if he hadn't tried too hard to shock the reader. To me, the point should be that there are a lot of other factors to consider besides just kinetic energy, and that's too important a point to be lost in hubris. Unfortunately, the author greatly cluttered that point.

Basically, kinetic energy in hunting applications is like cholesterol measurements for M.D.'s looking at heart disease risk -- it's only one aspect and definitely not the whole enchilada.

.280Rem: +1...

[quote]Energy transfer is not a "myth" but it is but one way to effectuate death in creatures, and when[quote]

Send this to the wound ballistics experts maybe they have missed something

I don't think elk read this kind if stuf. All they know is if you hit them in the right [lace, they die.

There are lots of "ballistic experts" that have opinions quite the opposite of Dr. Fackler's.

Fackler, as previously noted, came at his conclusion through preconceived notions. Im not saying they're wrong either. But he assumes a position of supreme authority espousing his one point of veiw on a subject with many other ways to accomplish the same desired effect. His opinion is debunked many times each hunting season in the fields and woods. They are also confirmed...bringing me back to my point of view: Energy transfer is not a "myth" but it is but one way to effectuate death in creatures. Energy transfer is no more myth than wound channel size. Again, both or a comprimised combination of both can and are frequently used with great success afield.

All I can say is, there's a big difference between shooting a 180 lb. man with a military-type bullet from a 5.56 or a 9mm and shooting a 750 lb. elk with a hunting bullet from a 30-06. Which should be an obvious point to anyone but a non-hunter or a very inexperienced hunter, which I suspect is the case at least with Dr. Flacker............

There's also a difference between shooting big game with a 308 and a 300 Winchester in terms of how quickly and dramatically animals of the same size and at the same distance from the rifle will go down (on average) with the same shot placement, and from a bullet of the exact-same make, weight and construction.

And any experienced African PH will tell you that there's a big difference in how hard a Cape buffalo will go down when hit with a 458 Win. Mag. and a 460 Weatherby, with bullets of the same weight and construction.

In each case, that difference due to energy transfer due to delivered FPE, caused by increased velocity. Even Dr., Flacker must know that if you double a bullet's weight, you double its delivered energy, but if you double it's VELOCITY, you QUADRUPLE its energy.

In terms of actual physical science and actual honest experience as it applies to hunting at least, Flacker's arguments are easy to take out of context, and they're easy to misapply. They're also easy to blow out of the water, on paper, as well as from actual experience.

If you want to deny physics, go ahead though. The worst kind of foolishness is to go down in flames over some pet theory that in practice just plain doesn't work..........

AD

Hydra-shok/Golden Saber/Firestar and(Gasp!) Black Talon.
Mr Tom Burczynki desigened 2 of those Superior handgun bullets.and us shortgunners have never had it better.

Dr Fackler knows his stuff,but i fear real world applications have turned his work around i.e the [email]9mm@1300[/email] fps the .357 125 @1450.we don't have Elk here in Dixie least my part but i reckon a .30/06 [email]corelokt@2770[/email] fps thru his lungs may not be a good thing for mr. elk.yalls thoughts?

AGREED! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

AD

This is the kicker for me. Yeah that is the way to influence folk, just tell them their experience is meaningless. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

On Terminal Performance

I suppose I should be flattered a bit-- but really, it would have been common courtesy to ask permission before just helping yourself to my property, my copyrighted article. It is no one's to use without permission.

Anyone familiar with basic copyright law should know better.

jwp475,

A lunitic has you tied up in his basement. He has a 1/2" (.50 cal.) steel rod with a sharp point that is long enough to run you through the chest cavity. And he has a .224 caliber rifle with a varmint bullet loaded at 3600fps. He give you the choice "One stick through and through with the spear, or one shot from the rifle from 10 ft. (either to a spot he draws on your chest just left of your sternum on line with your nipple) and you get to walk away if you survive either and seek medical treatment. Your choice? Which one?

OOOPS! DOH! OUCH! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Thats funny, I don't care who ya are!

For Fackler to say that energy is inconsequential is sort of misleading.

That's like saying that "it's not the bullet that killed him, it's that big hole in his chest that caused him to die!" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

What I'm essentially saying is that yes, the FPE isn't what kills. But FPE is--let's say--a byproduct of getting that bullet to make the largest hole possible.

In other words, the bullet must EXPAND and penetrate in order to do the most damage. Without enough velocity, the bullet will not expand, and it may not penetrate well either.

However.... add the necessary velocity for adequate expansion and (who-woulda-thunk-it) FPE goes up, and penetration is improved as well.

A bullet cannot cut as wide a would channel as a broad-head arrow unless that bullet expands. So again, in order to get the bullet to cut that wide swath, it must be sped up enough to "bloom" shall we say. The arrow or spear doesn't need to expand, so low velocity there is fine--the wound channel is still large. But the cylindrical, round bullet will only make a caliber sized hole if it does not have the velocity to expand. As velocity goes up, so does FPE.

This really ain't rocket science. But some guys seem to want to make it just that... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Dan

I know copyright law has got way out of whack from its origin in the Constitution, something like life of the author plus 70 years, but isn't offering for sale required for violation?

jim

Absolutely not-- stealing is stealing.

US Office of Copyright

If you don't believe the US Office of Copyright, well-- "Just Ask the Gunwriters." <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[quote]All I can say is, there's a big difference between shooting a 180 lb. man with a military-type bullet from a 5.56 or a 9mm and shooting a 750 lb. elk with a hunting bullet from a 30-06. Which should be an obvious point to anyone but a non-hunter or a very inexperienced hunter, which I suspect is the case at least with Dr. Flacker............

There's also a difference between shooting big game with a 308 and a 300 Winchester in terms of how quickly and dramatically animals of the same size and at the same distance from the rifle will go down (on average) with the same shot placement, and from a bullet of the exact-same make, weight and construction.

And any experienced African PH will tell you that there's a big difference in how hard a Cape buffalo will go down when hit with a 458 Win. Mag. and a 460 Weatherby, with bullets of the same weight and construction.
[quote]

You are missng the point the permanent wound channel is relevant and enough speed creates secundary wounding,and speed often times create larger frontal area of the projectile and creates a larger permanent wound channel.

As far as the 460 being supperior in many of the African hunting Mags the ph's claim the opposite

This was I thought posted on a public web site and I did not think there was any thing wrong with posting here for others to see,if I was incorrct Then I appoligise .

The source should have been cited and credited. Also, isn't there some exclusion to "public domain" documents on the web?

If you wrote for a living, you would see it quite differently.

You bet it is WRONG-- not only was my article renamed, but somehow my name was removed from it, as well as the copyright notice that appears at the bottom of it loud and clear.
That cannot possibly be construed as "innocent infringement."

One can only hope that the personal property rights of others are respected, just as the copyrighted contents of this site (and its members) should also be respected.

If you care about the law, then there it is:

Copyright Myths

For those who care, the US Office of Copyright makes it clear.

It is simply no one's property to use without permission, and no permission was asked for-- much less given.

Know it? I wrote it.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

Randy,

Im a prosecutor...would you like me to have him arrested? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

By the way, when I read the peice, I looked and looked for a name...I noticed it was absent. That would indeed piss me off to not only see my work published without permission, but also failing to give me credit as well, whether it was in the public domain or not.

Then, if your theory is correct, the 375 Winchester should perform just as well on big game, every time, as the 375 H&H........

Is that what I'm hearing? If the answer is "NO", then what's the real difference between those two cartridges?

It's either one way or the other, now which is it?

Let me ask you something else:

Just how much big game hunting have you actually done?

I have the feeling that we're dealing with a real pilgrim...............

AD

Allenday,

Anybody that hunts and has killed game knows that "energy transfer" is not a "myth"!

The two cartridges that you listed don't shoot the same wieght bullets and would surrley not have the same penetraton ability( 220 grain vs 270 or 300) check this out

http://www.deerstalker.com/marksmanship__universal_physics.htm

I have taken a few head including both Moose and Artic Grizzly with both handgun and rifle and a 475 revolver is very impressive even when compaired to a 338 Win with 250 grain partions.The 475 is less than half the foot pounds of energy of the 338

jwp,

you never did answer my question about which method of injury you'd choose to try to survive as posed above. Any reason why?

I don't think that I would choose either

Funny article! Funny! LOL! A rose by any other color is still a rose! Kinetic Energy is not a myth. The first post in this thread is kind of funny in a way. "Read this with an open mind..." Right, your mind is wide open huh? That should have said "Read this all you people who think you know something, and come around to my way of thinking."

Nice dodge, but that wasn't an option! You're non-answer is answer enough...the silence is deafening! Little skeered that high energy petite projectile will take your azz out of this world before you even hear the report of the rifle?

[quote]Funny article! Funny! LOL! A rose by any other color is still a rose! Kinetic Energy is not a myth. The first post in this thread is kind of funny in a way. "Read this with an open mind..." Right, your mind is wide open huh? That should have said "Read this all you people who think you know something, and come around to my way of thinking." [quote]

You guys are argueing with the wound ballistics expert not me............I did not do the reaserch...... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

I think a better explanation is that foot pounds of energy by themselves don't tell the whole story about what happens when an animal is shot, not that it doesn't matter.

Let's say you take a 358 Norma mag, load up a 125 gr pistol bullet, 250 gr Partition, and 300 gr solid, all at 4000 foot pounds of energy. Will they all be equal killers? No, because bullet construction and hence the wound channel that is created are what kill. The little hollowpoint is likely to grenade at impact and create a nasty, albeit unlikely quickly lethal wound. The 250 gr expanding bullet will open up and create a decent dia and depth wound channel. The 300 gr solid will zip right through and leave a much smaller dia wound channel.

Where does one get a degree in Wound Ballistics? I know where to get one in physics, medicine, physiology, etc. "Wound Ballistics" is the science of pushing forth an opinion that bigger heavier bullets are better at killing, and using forensic data "post mortem" to put forth their "findings/opinions". All that is left "post mortem" is the permanent wound cavity. Its easy to debunk what is not seen physically and physiologicly at the instant the bullet strikes the target, and call it a "myth".

By the way, several things are clear here...you have Facklers hook in your gullet so deep its all you can feel and taste. Other "wound ballistics experts" have debunked Fackler...you've chosen which ones to believe. I didn't even try to argue against Fackler so much as say he's only considering part of the equation. I have already seen that debating this with you is like debating me about lawyers and the layman's opinon on the law...you wont be swayed in the slightest. I will keep hanging non-dead deer that dropped in their tracks and allowed me to gut them alive while being barely wounded from small fast bullets....you keep punching large holes through your targets and expending worthless energy in the ground behind the target. Im quite sure you kill them deader than I.

And whose hook do you have down your gullet??How was Fackler debunked??
It is funny how this is recieved in different forums much more accepted in the hangun forum,since hundguns kill quite well with not much foot pounds of energy when compaired to rifles

If foot pounds are so relavent then why is a police officer not killed nor seriously injured when shot in the chest and the bullet hits his bullet proof vest,yet he is seriously injured or killed with the same amount of enrgy when not wearing a vest????

Are we now being told that 168-gr TSX bullets at 3200 fps are not the best close range loads for deer? OOOPS! DOH! OUCH!

How do you figure that since the bullet will hold together and penetrate??? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

If you don't think a 168gr TSX will kill a deer at short range....you might wanna re-evaluate.

Bottom line, the whole point is to kill it....the rest don't matter...

I just asked a question about velocity and foot-pounds.
Let me ask it in a more generic fashion:
Are you now saying that a 168-gr bullet of softer construction at a lower velocity is often more lethal than a tougher 168-gr bullet at over 3,000 fps, and a lot more energy?

Substitute some other bullet, if the TSX gets you too emotional.

Re-read my post, looking for any extra emotion, and came up short....re-read a few of yours, looking for signs of common sense, and had no luck....

No mention of foot pounds, either, in the post I quoted....

The Homer Simpson-esque exclamations were a clever touch though.

Hand guns kill well? Shoot two deer, one with a 45 acp and the other with a 300 win mag. Get back with me on which one runs the farthest.

Note to Rick Bin-- thank you.

Despite several hundred hits on this thread, and ostensibly a LOT of 'energy transfer' . . . doesn't look like anything has dropped dead yet. No vital wounds at all.

The title of the article was not "Exposing" or referring to a "myth." That was added here. The title was and is "Terminal Bullet Performance in Muzzleloading" and contains a "NOTE that strike velocities exceeding 2000 fps from shoulder-fired weapons are not the subject of this treatise."

I also tried to make clear that "It is important for me to mention that forensic laboratory tests that have clinically disproven the conventional acceptance (and reliability) of kinetic energy, knockdown, frangible bullets, worship of velocity, and so forth are not my revelations at all."

Also: "We have long heard, and likely have given credence to the "800 fpe to ethically harvest deer." Yet, that number can be achieved with a 25 grain bullet at 4000 fps, or with a 350 grain bullet at 1100 fps. Obviously, there is a difference in what tissue destruction can be obtained, and the size and type of bone that can be obliterated with such divergently weighted projectiles. That dismisses the 800 fpe figure, by itself, as the only meaningful value. The ONLY figure.

It does NOT try to say that energy does not exist whether heat, rotational, or kinetic. Energy alone is not the only factor in muzzleloading terminal performance-- self-evident, but not accepted. If a truly vital organ is destroyed, an animal is not going to live very long. What could be more proven than how ineffective poor shot placement can be? Deer don't care how fast you miss them, nor does much of anything else. A bullet that does not penetrate adequately to destroy a vital organ, regardless of the energy number, is not the best combination.

It wasn't energy ALONE that I killed this caribou with: Caribou or this boar-- A Boaring pic

Nor did energy alone kill this caribou: .

Caribou aren't good at math, and it had more to do with his sudden heart attack I'd guess.

Anyway, is anyone on this thread hunting South Africa this summer besides me?

Have fun,

Randy

Since you are coninvced that foot pounds of energy is so important,then how do you explain the effectiveness of an arrow on large game.An Arrow and a bullet both kill by pentrating enough to either destroy the central nervesous system or by damaging vital tissue that results in massive blood loss there by depriving the brain of oxygen. An arrow does not have much energy.
Velocity at or above 2000 fee per secound can certainly create secoundary wounding from secoundary projectiles thus creating a larger wound channel.

Bullets need energy to expand, and to drive their dull shape through the animal and destroy vital organs. Arrows don't need tremendous energy because they are razor sharp. Energy is the potential to do work, and the arrow or bullet is what does the work.

A bullet with 1 fpe is not lethal, because it cannot do sufficient work to kill. A bullet with 1000, 4000, 10,000 fpe of energy provided it can penetrate to reach vital organs will do enough work to kill.

Isn't momentum a better indication of a projectiles ability to penetrate?? An arrow has suffiecient momentum to penetrate.........and so do bullets..........

This thread does not say that Foot Pounds of Energy is not a real number nor does it say that is useless,what it does say is that it is not the HOLLY GRAIL of wound ballistics

It's pretty simple; you poke a big, deep hole in a critter, breaking bones and/or destroying vital organs.

Then, he dies.

Steve

More food for thought:
And he gave his permision to cross post,

ALF
one of us

Posted Jun 2, 12:16 PM
The velocity myth:

If you ask the question:

Does velocity and velocity alone play a role in the wounding mechanism? then the answer is an unequivcal NO !

This something few hunters and shooters can come to terms with.

But Lets look at this statement more closely:

In order to quantify the effect of velocity only as a parameter we have to standardise on all other variables including target variables.

So to do this we use a standardised stable, non deforming, non fragmenting projectile and we fire this into a homogenous stanadardized target with primarily visco-elastic behaviour.

The projectile target interaction is described at the hand of two phenomena, direct crush and indirect stretch, leading to what we see as a permanent wound cavity and a temporary cavity.

The permanent cavity diameter is independent of velocity and will be of equal or smaller diameter ( the latter because of the elastic rebound of our target medium) and this is true across the whole "current usable velocity spectrum" as well as experimentally attained hyper velocity ( > 6000 fps) values.

This holds only true if the projectile remains stable, does not deform or fragment / or alternately liberate secondary projectiles in the target such as bone fragments

So in terms of increasing permanant channel diameter we can do this by the following means.

1. Instability of the projectile.
2. Deformation.
3. Fragmentation of the projectile and lastly:
4. If the projectile generates and liberates
secondary projectiles within the target.

And off course the bigger the projectile caliber the bigger the hole.

But why then bigger holes with high velocity calibers? Simple!

As we increase velocity we increase drag on the projectile (The tissue becomes "harder") and this in turn overwhelms the projectile's ability to withstand deformation and fragmantation and as result of the latter two phenomena we get bigger wounds. So velocity plays a role but the role is dependent on qualification.


But this is a two way street, projectile behaviour on the one side and target factors on the other:

The target medium mechnical behaviour status is equally important.

If our target has behaviour similar to fluids
(incompressable) with low cohesion then we get "explosive effects" and this is very much velocity dependent.

Temporary channel phenomena are drag dependent ( ie directly related to velocity).

The mechanical behaviour of the tissue will thus be a strong determinant in the ulitimate wound profile. if the target is primarily visco-elastic with good cohesion the temorary phenomenon is of little importance. Even less in tissues of high cohesive behaviour such as bone tendon or cartilage.

Posts: 3711 | Registered: 16 August 2000

This discussion reminds me of a warning I got in graduate school from a pretty old research type professor. He said "theories are like having sex with a prostitute, take only what you need and don't fall in love and you'll be OK, otherwise you are going to find yourself in some odd situations."

SS

I like that saying............. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I killed one Deer with a 45 ACP he went about 20 yards,not very far for a lung shot and the lungs were mush

I had to take a course in statistics to finish my spotted college career. The first bit of wisdom out of the professor's mouth is somenting I'll take with me to the grave.

Here was a natty man of sixty years, dressed in a three-piece tweed suit and tie, with the largest moustache I've ever seen.

His words of wisdom were as follows: "Young folks, you are going to be exposed to a lot of statistics in your long lives. Just remember this:The Average American has one ball and one tit."

Obviously, he made the point, but I laughed so hard that I thought I was going to wet myself. One thing for sure, he had our total attention from that point forward.

Steve

STEVE!!!!!!!!!!!

That's got to be one of the funniest things I've ever heard in my life <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

And that's the sort of anecdotal wisdom that surely makes the cost of a college education WORTH it, I'd say!

This sorry thread needs to end on that note, but I don't suspect it will.............. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

AD

Whats your question? A 168 TSX at 3200 would be fine for deer at any range.

Dude....that was funny......!

[quote]This sorry thread needs to end on that note, but I don't suspect it will..............[quote]

Why Allen?

Yeah! I heard Zig Ziglar say: (paraphrase) "Averages? Well, tell ya whaaaat. Take on pot of boiling water, and one pot of ice water and soke one foot each in them, and see if on the average your comfortable. Hmmm?"

Wouldn't matter...jwp is so hell-bent on his propganda being accepted, though he stole it from another writer, he decided to post it on 2 forums!

I simple posted for all to read,I never stated nor intended for anyone to think that it wae my research or wriiten by me.Hell just read my post and it's apparent that I could not have written anything so ellequent.You can remain closed minded if you choose and not consider any of other part of the equation if you choose

All,

Please bear with me because I just couldn�t stand to read every post in this very controversial thread. I would like to chime in on this issue with a bit of logic.

Before we can discuss KE vs. penetration ad-nauseum, perhaps we should cover something the article missed. What causes incapacitation.

The quickest and most impressive method of incapacitation is neurological interruption. Essentially killing the brain or it�s pathway (the spine). Do this and you have the proverbial �bang-flop�

The second quickest way to �stop� a man or animal is to break down the skeletal system that physically holds it up. Generally this is by pelvic shots that incapacitate the legs or hind quarters. Break the pelvis and the animal either stops or slows WAY down.

The last method of incapacitation is hypovolemia, which is a 2.00 word for bleeding out. We do this by destroying the tissue that holds blood, and causing a huge leak. This leak will eventually lead to a rapid (if you�ve done your job right) loss of blood. A rapid loss of blood overwhelms the body�s ability to maintain blood pressure which is what keeps oxygenated blood in the brain. Without oxygen, the brain stops working correctly and we begin to see loss of consciousness. As mentioned in the article, when everything goes 100% right (in this category), incapacitation may still take a few seconds to a few minutes.

Now we can throw around KE numbers or we can talk about how much penetration we get. Both are worthless unless they lead to something that actually destroys tissue that is critical to maintaining blood pressure.

I�ll agree that KE is WAY overrated, but it�s not worthless. For rational people, it is a quantifiable yardstick to help them make a decision about a cartridge, bullet or load. The whole 800-1000 FPE thing was a guideline for people who are too lazy to apply any critical thinking to the problem of killing game. I happen to think for the stupid and the lazy, it�s a good guideline. For everyone else (which is probably most on this forum) we make our conclusions based on a number of things (far too many to list).

Neither KE or penetration figures by themselves add up to success. Cartridge design, bullet design, laboratory testing, and finally years of field testing are what add up to a winner or looser. We live in good times in that there are very few losers these days where bullets and cartridges are concerned. The single biggest variable in the big game hunting equation is the shooter. Most killing is won or lost before the shot is even taken.

So, you want a sure fire way to determine if your cartridge, load or bullet is going to work? Sorry, ain�t no such thing. So you have to use that matter between your ears just like the rest of us. Gather as much information as you possibly can, practice with your preferred shootin-stick and go do the deed. FPE & penetration are small pieces of the puzzle, not the entire mural.




PS � There is one other method of incapacitation, but It�s almost exclusive to humans, which is the psychosomatic response to being shot or shot at. When Barney Fife pulls out his heater and goes to work on the bad guy, who politely falls down dead like a good bad guy; 9 times out of 10, it�s from a psychosomatic response to being shot, rather that what Barney�s .38 did to the bad guys. We as humans are somewhat pre-programmed by our entertainment media to fall down when shot; it�s a rather interesting phenomenon. I was a big city Paramedic for most of my professional life and as such, I�ve treated hundreds of gun shot wounds. The most interesting are the people who are writhing on the ground, graphically describing the pain of their GSW, but there are no additional holes in them. They were instantly incapacitated without ever being struck by a bullet � So there goes ALL theories of KE and penetration.

This would be an excellent post for jwp475 to read!

A very good post that covered this pretty well..The idea behind the post was to get people to thinking,and maybe realize that foot pounds of energy may be over rated and it is certainly not the entire equation.................. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Well, I suppose I'll have to add my "take" on it...

!. Randy is right about copyright. "Borrow" my stuff without attribution and I get nasty.

2. FPE is a nice way to compare CARTRIDGES but is almost useless to predict KILLING ability. The .375 H&H is much more powerful than the .375 Winchester (that's a valid comparison). The .375 H&H is a "better" killer than the .375 Winchester (that is an INvalid comparison. Why? How do you define "better" when it comes to killing? Shot an animal with each one, and both critters die. No difference there. None. Shoot one BADLY with either and the OTHER animal will die quicker. So which is "better"? Beats me.
3. All these pot belly stove arguments are moot (I might say silly). Pick a gun and a cartridge you enjoy shooting. Practice until you can put the first bullet where you want it - every time. The animal you hit will die. The other guy's gun and cartridge will not kill any animal he shoots any deader.

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

Please see the treatise on this website for a definitive theory of wounding.

jimi

Gentlemen&Ladies:i think John Wooters or Craig Boddington spoke of the overuse of KE(stinks to get old:)) why then have forests been killed over their use? they are simple to show the average hunter(which we ain't) how strong a new&improved cartridge is i reckon cause if your a gun company and you suddlenly realize 80% of your sales are....boring old vanilla .270/308/3006 gasp horrors! we gotta boost our new stuff!soooo KE is overused.i'm nowhere near a great hunter i shoot handguns of all things and yall think .270 vs 30/06 is heated try 9 vs 40 vs 357 sig vs 45acp. thank you for yalls thoughts.

Don�t we know from experience, which cartridges are suitable for killing particular game animals? Why would we need to have the published foot pounds of energy figures to tell us, when to be honest, they don�t?

The energy figure is based on bullet weight and velocity, but we know those things already. Surely, a light bullet at extreme velocity will not kill well if it's energy is expended before it penetrates enough to destroy a vital organ, whereas a heavy bullet at low velocity will kill well, if it does. I wouldn�t choose either based on an energy figure.

Is foot pounds of energy, really a good way to compare what works and what doesn't? It tells you nothing about bullet construction, where the game animal is gonna be hit, size of the wound, or the trajectory of the bullet.

Did anyone say that FPE didn�t matter? Not me. I said the above figures weren�t worth my time. However, I have no problem with those who enjoy comparing FPE figures, confident that they are discovering marvelous things.

If there are reasons why I should pay attention to FPE, I�d be open to hearing them.

Respectfully, to the raucous crowd.
Smitty of the North

I gotta jump in here.

I've been killin critters (deer/bear) for bout 26 years now. And I am positive lots of folks have older stains in their huntin pants than that. Heck probably twice as old but here is my 2 cents worth.

I always use the shoulder shot. Not behind the shoulder but right on it. Everything dies from it. But what I did notice was that different calibers had dramatically different effects due to faster velocity.

Example on deer 30-30 (170) and 308(180) deer ran off 50 -75 yards and expired. But with my 300 ROY deer expire right where they were standing. Bang Flop.

I am not saying you need a 300 to shoot deer but the results are quite different on the initial shot. End results are the same dead deer.

Last spring I was in Sask for a bear hunt with a pard he had an 06 and I had my ROY. Both of us shoulder shot a bear. Both using 180 nosler partitons, his ran off 75 yds. Mine dropped like a rock.

Bullet size same and bullet weight the same but velocity quite different. FPE is a value of veloctiy times weight. In my experience with bullet weight being the same results are different as velocity increases on light skinned critters.

[Quote] BY RANDY WAKEMAN
Also: "We have long heard, and likely have given credence to the "800 fpe to ethically harvest deer." Yet, that number can be achieved with a 25 grain bullet at 4000 fps, or with a 350 grain bullet at 1100 fps. Obviously, there is a difference in what tissue destruction can be obtained, and the size and type of bone that can be obliterated with such divergently weighted projectiles. That dismisses the 800 fpe figure, by itself, as the only meaningful value. The ONLY figure.

It does NOT try to say that energy does not exist whether heat, rotational, or kinetic. Energy alone is not the only factor in muzzleloading terminal performance-- self-evident, but not accepted. If a truly vital organ is destroyed, an animal is not going to live very long. What could be more proven than how ineffective poor shot placement can be? Deer don't care how fast you miss them, nor does much of anything else. A bullet that does not penetrate adequately to destroy a vital organ, regardless of the energy number, is not the best combination.

It wasn't energy ALONE that I killed this caribou with: Caribou or this boar-- A Boaring pic

Nor did energy alone kill this caribou: .

Caribou aren't good at math, and it had more to do with his sudden heart attack I'd guess.[quote]
___________________________________________________________

Recently a couple of hunting buddies took an Asian water Buffalo each one of them used a 300 Ultra Mag with 180 grain TSX the other used a 500 JRH caliber revolver.The 300 ulta was shooting the 180 grainers at 3314 fps chrongrphed muzzle velocity,the 500 was shooting 425 grain hard cast at 1350 FPS the energy of the RUM was 4390 FPE, the energy of the revolver was 1720 FPE quite a difference despite the difference in energy the revolver made a one shot kill with a bullet through the shoulders ( the bull went down quickly) With this dispairity of energy the effectiveness of the handgun was outstanding,the outfitter said these buffalo just don't normially go down this fast,despite the fact that the 300RUM had 2.5 times more energy.If foot pounds of energy is so important then why is the handgun so effective?The 300 RUM was not more effective despite the 2.5 times more foot pounds of energy.
What else needs to be said.I would think that this would give reason to ponder the creadence given to FPE as the only meanfull value in the incapacitation of Animals.

Quote from my first post in this thread: "Shock" is as likely to cause death in many cases as any other physioligical reason. Shock can be induced by pain, interuption of the body's eletrical or circulatory system, etc. Energy transfer is not a "myth" but it is but one way to effectuate death in creatures, and when done with proper bullet selection, you can combine the best of both worlds of wound channel size and energy transfer.


It doesn't seem that Im saying anything really different than the writer from whom you stole the work. Yet you are attempting to use the stolen work, for which you gave no credit, to say energy transfer is a "myth," and that wound channel size is the only part of the equation that counts. Yes you are! The way I can tell is the title of this thread: " Exposeing The Foot Pounds of Energy Myth. " That along with your baseless arguments that you defend by saying: "You're not arguing with me, your arguing with wound ballistic experts" when someone corners you and you're not able to argue your point on your own without stolen work.

There is more than one way to get the job done my silly, thieving friend...more than one way! Energy transfer is not a myth. No its not!

Allen, would you rather have a 30-378 with a 180 grain at 3400 fps and a muzzle energy of 4621fpe or a 50 Alaskan wih a 525 grain at 1800 fps and a muzzle energy of 3778 fpe to face a charging buffalo even though the 30 cal has 843 foot pounds more energy I beleve that I would prefer the 50 from what I have experienced in the field and thier inlies the problem with foot pounds of energy as it is commonly used to rate effectiveness
Another example, which would say would be a better Deer cartridge a 22-250 with a 55 grain bullet or a 44 mag with a 240 grain bullet the 22-250 has 1627 FPE with a velocity of 3650 FPS,yet the 44 would only have 938 FPE with a muzzle velocity of 1300 FPS.I think that most would choose the 44

You are quite closed minded and refuse to consider that Foot Pounds of Energy,just might not be the Holly Grail as it has been touted by the gun rags.

You are quite closed minded and refuse to consider that Big Bore Wound Channel, just might not be the Holly Grail as it has been touted by an unknown goofball on the internet.

This is my last post on this thread..........

In my opinion, the only person who has a closed mind around here is you. You're a case of the blind being led by the blind, and it sounds to me like you'd better do more hunting than staying up, burning the midnight oil reading the half-bake theories of non-hunters.

If FPE didn't matter, then all cartridge development would have stopped in the 19th century. The U.S. Government would have never replaced the 45-70 with the 30-40 Krag, and it wouldn't have later replaced the Krag with the 30-06...........

AD

Foot pounds of energy is the POTENTIAL to do work from the moment of impact until the bullet comes to rest or exits.

I don't know if I dare get into this one or not... there is a lot that I am still figuring out about how bullets kill. But I think I can contribute a little.

1. Sadly, some of the best information we have about how bullets kill and injure comes from observations on humans, during wars. There are statistically large samples of people shot, and pretty well trained people looking at the wounds.

2. When a bullet strikes soft tissue, the kinetic energy deposited in the target goes to two main destinations: Crushing, breaking, and cutting tissue directly in the wound channel, and to stretching the surrounding tissue. An immediate kill is generally dependent on the crushing, breaking, and cutting effect, and having it in the right place.

3. If you graph the Shuichetti data (see attachment to post), the penetration of standard bullets is pretty constant from impacts between 2100 fps and 2800 fps. The penetration of some premium bullets is pretty constant over a wider range. If you are shooting standard bullets, boosting your impact speed beyond 2800 fps is actually counterproductive, because you will get LESS penetration than you would at slower speeds. Wound channel dimensions seem to be pretty constant over a wide range. Kinetic energy is not constant over that same range.

4. My own speculation: Since critters are not all soft tissue, it is likely that heavy bullets work better because they will continue to penetrate after striking a large bone. I have a test designed for that, but also have a 14 week gig out of town...

5. An immediate kill seems to come from one of two things: A strike to the central nervous system, or making a large enough hole that causes enough bleeding to cause quick death. How big is big enough? I don't know. It seems to be something around 1/2" or larger.

6. Momentum usually comes in when you are calculating pre- and post-collision velocities in an inelastic collision, which usually describes a bullet strike. Momentum is conserved in an inelastic collision, and the math shows why a bullet is extremely unlikely to literally knock over an elk. I don't think it is especially useful in calculating killing capacity.

7. And most controversial: Copyright law does not give the author total exclusivity. There are major exceptions for educational use, commentary and analysis, and other situations. Posting the whole article, without attribution was probably beyond fair use, but the poster apologized. If somebody lifts a paragraph out of one my articles, and then procedes to analyze or comment on what I was saying, it is legally fair use.

(copyright 2006 denton bramwell <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />)

And transfer of that energy happens in the target. How much and how much effect it has, and how that energy is put to use are the variables. It aint no myth, and it does have an effect on the target.

It takes very little energy to penetrate without expending energy in the target...More energy to dump in the target, yet retaining enough of the projectile's integrity and energy to continue penetration during energy transfer is the best combination. JMO based the "wound ballistics experts" to whom I subscribe.

Correct. The less of that energy transferred to the right kind of energy, the less lethal the bullet. Kinetic energy can be converted to

* Heat
* Deformation of the bullet
* Partial dismantling of the bullet
* Breaking bones
* A wide wound channel of tissue damage
* A longer and narrower wound channel
* Moving the entire animal
* Retained momentum after the bullet exits the tissue

The faster the bullet decelerates after impact the greater the impulse, just like the recoil of a light rifle.
The slower the deceleration, the less the impulse, just like the push of a shotgun.

Amen.

God forbid, we write something and somebody does something to cause people to actually read it.

The horror! The horror!!!

rsy

[quote]uote from my first post in this thread: "Shock" is as likely to cause death in many cases as any other physioligical reason. Shock can be induced by pain, interuption of the body's eletrical or circulatory system, etc. Energy transfer is not a "myth" but it is but one way to effectuate death in creatures, and when done with proper bullet selection, you can combine the best of both worlds of wound channel size and energy transfer.[quote]

And the "SHOCK" was apparently caused with realitively little foot pounds of energy

DENTON,
A very good post.Manny take this as if I said foot pounds of energy did not exist,which is not the case at all.
The myth part is that foot pounds of energy is not the best or at least the only way to look at a cartridges effectives.Thier or those that proclaim a 800 to 1000 foot pounds of energy nessasary to kill a deer is often claimed,yet deer can and are taken cleanly with less .
Foot pounds of energy is certainly a real number, but how much is needed and what is it's roll in this equation.
When a bullet fails to pentrate deeply enough it is not effective as when it does penatrate deeply enough,yet the foot pounds of energy are the same.Would this not cause one to think that maybe FPE is not the best way to rate a cartridges effectiveness

Not to anyone in particular:

FPE clearly is the be-all and end-all consideration for dealing death to game animals. That is why clearly magnum calibers are the only calibers to hunt with ethically. The lesser calibers do not have enough FPE to kill anything.















TIC <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Of course, that would mean that a 50 BMG sniper rifle is the most ethical hunting caliber of all, right? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You may be onto something...

What about my rancher friend shooting completely through an elk at 75 yards with a Remington .357 Magnum 158-grain JSP, from a Marlin saddlegun, breaking a rib going in, a rib going out, taking out the lungs and heart and dropping the critter in its tracks?

Musta been moving pretty fast to gin up the FPE it needed...

Or maybe that .357 was just efficient at tranferring most its energy into creating a wound channel, instead of bullet deformation, shock waves, heat and excess energy to move the bullet another 200 yards after exiting. It's about the same energy as the original .30-30 was, and that dropped a lot of deer and elk.

Easy Lee24! I'm just trolling....grin!

Hey, it gave me an excuse to elaborate.
People who just look at FPE, when it comes from squaring a high velocity instead of increased bullet mass, forget that a lot of that energy is consumed in bullet deformation. An extreme example is a 5.56 NATO round at 3,000 fps striking the boron carbide plate in a body armor vest. The plate cracks and the bullet melts, with no penetration, and not a lot of energy remaining to even bruise the infantry soldier wearing the vest.

Oh, OK then <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Great point!Yey the foot pounds of enrgy from the bullet is the same as when no vest is worn.
My point is that thier are other and possiably better ways to rate effectiveness than by simply stating foot pounds of energy

All the jabber about energy and "killing power" originates with the natural but utterly impracticable notion that we can determine relative index numbers that compare and predict our bullets' performance on human and game flesh.

Ain't gonna happen, Jos�!

There's entirely too much unpredictable variation in field situations and conditions � the flesh that's struck, the distance to it, the bullet's path through the flesh, the physiological and psychological conditions of the creature struck, just to mention a few.

No reference-number system yet proposed sheds any light on why (a) a preteen prankster can kill an elephant with a single bullet from a .22 Short while (b) a timber-cruiser can blow the guts out of a porcupine with a magazineful of .243 rounds and still have to finish it off with more rounds (or wait for it to die).

The whole urge to produce a system of determining and assigning reference numbers to rate the innate "killing power" of bullets and cartridges is a waste of time, thought, and fret.

.

And yet it sells! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Great post,and that is the crux of this thread

Very true, a .22-250 varmint round can stop a grizzly cold if it happens to expend all of its energy in the heart lung area. The thing is, though, that such a round will likely expend all of its energy on the shoulder blade or rib cage, before reaching the vitals. That's why bullet construction, weight, and sectional density must also be considered, not mere ft lbs of energy. A six inch long .22 caliber FMJ bullet travelling at 3,000 fps, for example, would have huge amount of energy with it, but would likely make a tiny clean hole through a deer, imparting most of its energy on a rock formation a hundred yards behind the animal.

A good post Hawkeye

Another example would be a 300 RUM with a 180 grain at 3300 FPS,the energy would be 4353 FPE,compared to a 375 H&H with a 300 grain slug at 2530 FPS wich is 4265 FPE. If I were after Cape Buffalo or larger game my choice would be the 375H&H even though the 300 RUM has a muzzle energy that is 88 Foot pounds more. This is the problem of useing foot pounds of energy to compare one cartridges effectiveness to another

This quote from:


quote:
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOUND BALLISTICS LITERATURE, AND WHY

by M.L. Fackler, M.D.

Letterman Army Institute of Research
Division of Military Trauma Research
Presidio of San Francisco, California 94219

Institute Report No. 239
July 1987



quote:
4. Presumption of "Kinetic Energy Deposit" to Be a Mechanism of Wounding:
Serious misunderstanding has been generated by looking upon "kinetic energy transfer" from projectile to tissue as a mechanism of injury. In spite of data to the contrary (1, 63), many assume that the amount of "kinetic energy deposit" in the body by a projectile is a measure of damage (2-5, 36, 37, 40). Such opinions ignore the direct interaction of projectile and tissue that is the crux of wound ballistics. Wounds that result in a given amount of "kinetic energy deposit" may differ widely. The nondeforming rifle bullet of the AK-74 (Fig 6) causes a large temporary cavity which can cause marked disruption in some tissue (liver), but has far less effect in others (muscle, lung, bowel wall) (9). A similar temporary cavity such as that produced by the M-16 (Fig 2), stretching tissue that has been riddled by bullet fragments, causes a much larger permanent cavity by detaching tissue segments between the fragment paths. Thus projectile fragmentation can turn the energy used in temporary cavitation into a truly destructive force because it is focused on areas weakened by fragment paths rather than being absorbed evenly by the tissue mass. The synergy between projectile fragmentation and cavitation can greatly increase the damage done by a given amount of kinetic energy.

A large slow projectile (Fig 7) will crush (permanent cavity) a large amount of tissue, whereas a small fast missile with the same kinetic energy (Fig 4) will stretch more tissue (temporary cavity) but crush little. If the tissue crushed by a projectile includes the wall of the aorta, far more damaging consequences are likely to result than if this same projectile "deposits" the same amount of energy beside this vessel.

Many body tissues (muscle, skin, bowel wall, lung) are soft and flexible--the physical characteristics of a good shock absorber. Drop a raw egg onto a cement floor from a height of 2 m; then drop a rubber ball of the same mass from the same height. The kinetic energy exchange in both dropped objects was the same at the moment of impact. Compare the difference in effect; the egg breaks while the ball rebounds undamaged. Most living animal soft tissue has a consistency much closer to that of the rubber ball than to that of the brittle egg shell. This simple experiment demonstrates the fallacy in the common assumption that all kinetic energy "deposited" in the body does damage.

The assumption that "kinetic energy deposit" is directly proportional to damage done to tissues also fails to recognize the components of the projectile-tissue collision that use energy but do not cause tissue disruption. They are 1) sonic pressure wave, 2) heating of the tissue, 3) heating of the projectile, 4) deformation of the projectile, and 5) motion imparted to the tissue (gelatin bloc displacement for example).

The popular format for determination of "kinetic energy deposit" uses a chronograph to determine striking velocity and another to determine exit velocity. A 15-cm thick block of tissue simulant (gelatin or soap) is the target most often used. This method has one big factor in its favor; it is simple and easy to do. As for its validity, the interested reader is referred to wound profiles shown in Figs 1-7. Comparing only the first 15 cm of the missile path with the entire missile path as shown on the profiles shows the severe limitation of the 15-cm block format. The assumption by weapons developers that only the first 15 cm of the penetrating projectile's path through tissue is of clinical significance (64) may simplify their job, but fails to provide sufficient information for valid prediction of the projectile's wounding potential. The length of bullet trajectories through the human torso can be up to four times as long as those in these small blocs. Even if this method were scientifically valid, its use has been further flawed by nearly all investigators who have included the M-16 rifle bullet in those projectiles tested. This method assumes that the projectile's mass remains constant through both chronographs. The M-16 routinely loses one third of its mass in the form of fragments which may remain in the target (see Fig 2). The part of the bullet that passes through the second chronograph screens weighs only about two-thirds as much as the intact bullet that passed through the first set of screens. No provision is made for catching and weighing the projectile to correct for bullet fragmentation when it occurs. The failure to correct for loss of bullet mass can cause large errors in "energy deposit" data (8).

Surgeons sometimes excise tissue from experimental missile wounds that is, in their judgment, nonviable and compare the weight of tissue excised with the "kinetic energy deposited" (65). A surgeon's judgment and his technique of tissue excision is very subjective, as shown by Berlin et al (66), who found in a comparison that "One surgeon excised less tissue at low energy transfers and rather more at high energy transfers than the other surgeon, although both surgeons used the same criteria when judging the tissues." None of these experiments included control animals to verify that tissue the surgeon had declared "nonviable" actually became necrotic if left in place. Interestingly, all studies in which animals were kept alive for objective observations of wound healing report less lasting tissue damage than estimated from observation of the wound in the first few hours after it was inflicted (43-47, 67, 68). In a study of over 4,000 wounded in WW II it was remarked, "It is surprising to see how much apparently nonvital tissue recovered" (69).

Anyone yet unconvinced of the fallacy in using kinetic energy alone to measure wounding capacity might wish to consider the example of a modern broadhead hunting arrow. It is used to kill all species of big game, yet its striking energy is only about 50 ft-lb (68 Joules)-- less than that of the .22 Short bullet. Energy is used efficiently by the sharp blade of the broadhead arrow. Cutting tissue is far more efficient than crushing it, and crushing it is far more efficient than tearing it apart by stretch (as in temporary cavitation).



Seems to me that kinetic energy as applied to firearma is poor way of rating effectiveness

jwp;

Serious question: Are you on a crusade, or something?

KE alone is a [bleep] measure of effectiveness, true. Just like caliber alone, or projectile weight alone, or any other factor alone.

Still, compare apples to apples, and something like, say, the .300 Savage firing a 180 gr. PSP vs. a .300 Wby firing an indentical 180 gr. PSP and which is going to be the better big-game cartridge? The only difference between those two (assume like rifles, Rem 700s, for instance) is going be be velocity, and thus energy. Identical bullets, identical calibers - greater velocity and energy in one vs. the other.

The Dr. Fackler report has been long published on my website with the knowledge of and direct permission from Martin Fackler, MD. All proper references and credits are included:

What's Wrong with the Wounding Ballistics Literature, and Why

There are several factors that are discussed from the basis of empirical evidence from Dr. Fackler, himself an experienced battlefield surgeon. Those interested in such matters might as well read the entire content.

There are an estimated 30 MILLION deer in North America. Hunters tag some 5-6 million every year, so we must be doing something right. There are another 1.5 deer / vehicle accidents per year; I'd imagine the Buick / Bambi lethality percentage is quite high. We have another 1 million or so deer that are poached every year-- there are no official numbers on that, obviously. We have yet another unclaimed wounded / gutshot deer in North America that die due to wanton waste. There are more taken by depredation permits in certain areas.

Some 9- 10 million deer a year dying from causes other than 'natural.' Still the deer populations grow, as does the annual deer harvest most years. Every year, we intentionally kill over 6 million deer-- most rational people would call this more than a trival sampling, or simple phone survey. By now, we should certainly know what causes a deer to die. And, we do.

Unfortunately, it is not the one word answer that everyone seems to want. "Velocity kills. Energy kills. Expansion kills. Sectional density kills. Caliber kills." We really should know by now that there is no simplistic answer to a sophisticated question.

Anyone that has taken a first year biology course knows what the vital organs of a mammal are. Remove or destroy a vital organ, the animal quicky perishes.

From the medical autopsies on deer, the videotaped killing and subsequent medical autopsies on live deer, hogs, mules, goats, we do know a few things.

We know that no two wild animals are exactly alike. Animals are individuals, with wide variances in strength, health, and the will to live. What may instantly drop a certain deer may not do the same on a deer of similar size and shape.

Not only are all wild animals different, but no two wound cavities are identical. Same rifle, same range, same bullet, same shot placement-- yet, a different wounding profile. Always.

It should strike us as a bit silly when the tissue simulants we use are concocted to be the SAME, whether calibrated ballistic gelatin, soaked phone books, putty, soap, soil, water, and endless variants. None of them have circulation, respiration, or living tissue-- or even bones. It is never enough; have you made a "Ballistic Buffalo" yet? Ballistic Buffalo

No tissue simulant known yet can approximate the elastic characteristics of living tissue, or accomodate health, age, and will to survive into any precise equation.

We will continue to worship velocity, expansion, energy, section density and other fragmented parts of the equation as always. We should really know better.

Look at ALL the lethality formulas. Here is a collection of them from one load, a REAL LOAD, a load I hunt with on a regular basis. Can anyone tell me what game animals it is good for, and at what ranges? Yet, here are many of its "sometimes accepted" values:

Hatcher�s RSP = 120.4

A-Square Penetration Index = 41

A-Square Shock Power Index = 539

Tappan�s WAVE factor = 120.4

IPSC Power Factor = 665

Lott�s Estimated Effective Energy: EEE1=306 EEE2=1497

Taylor Knock-Out Value = 43.5

Fuller Index = 175

Wootter�s Lethality Index = 306

Arnold Arms Relative Performance Index = 96

Elmer Keith Knockdown Factor = 95 pounds / feet.

Parker Ackley�s Momentum = 66.5

All of these values are more sophisticated, some FAR more than just energy numbers. Yet, none of them are anything less than tremendously flawed-- for a couple of so very obvious reasons.

This stuff is apparently quite good for Al Gore's Internet, though. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[quote] KE alone is a [bleep] measure of effectiveness, true. Just like caliber alone, or projectile weight alone, or any other factor alone.[quote]

You are exactly correct here,that is the myth of foot pounds of energy as a way of measuring one calibers effectiveneass to another.
There are many variables,(speed ,bullet diamater,bullet construction, etc)
Just trying to say that foot pounds of energy is not the best way to determine the effectiveness of a rounds ability to incapacitate,there are other considerations

GREAT POST

There's the crux of the matter, where (IMO) it's stupid to waste time and thought. With all the inevitable, substantive variations unavoidably involved, it's simply impossible to construct any kind of useful or accurate numerical equation or rating system � so why bother? There'll always be a great number of typical exceptions that anyone can expect to encounter in the field, at any unpredictable time.

This quest is therefore about as useful as the debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

.

When all else fails, invent a caliber.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

If you are suggesting that increasing the fpe will always increase the effectiveness, you are just plain wrong. Take a standard construction soft pointed 180 grain .30 caliber spitzer bullet and hit a bull elk with it in the shoulder at exactly 2,000 fps. Then take the exact same bullet and hit another bull elk, same weight in same spot, but this time at 4,000 fps. The second bullet will make contact with greater fpe, yet have a less deadly effect on the animal, because the bullet will disintegrate against the shoulder, wounding the animal instead of killing it.

OK, OK...YOU WIN....F***IN' LET IT GO! SOMEBODY TELL ME WHERE TO GO BUY A BIG BORE THAT WILL KILL! ALL I HAVE IS "POTENTIAL TO DO WORK" CARTRIDGES THAT HAVE BEEN MYTHICALLY KILLING DEER FOR 25 YEARS, HELP ME STOP THE MADNESS!

TRH;

Weren't suggesting that at all - it was just the first nearest apples-to-apples comparison I could come up with.

Ken's post, and Randy's earlier treatise said it best, methinks... after those, this horse is just about dust...

+100000000000000000000000000000000000

My thoughts exactly.

How is it any less meaningfull than this caliber vs that caliber??
Learning and understand the dymamics of wounding can perhaps make us all better at our passion of hunting big and small game

Friggin' leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Same to you if you like it DON'T participate

So does this mean that perhaps we can also probably learn more about love and attraction by assigning a "beauty index" or "sex-appeal factor" to each of our favorite Hollywood "Heavenly bodies" and even rate our girl friends accordingly? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

.

I like the sex appeal factor and we could rate our girl friends more precisely <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

This is often done albeit subjectively. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />