I was watching Eastmans on the tube tonight, watched a guy take an elk at 380 yards. I would rather get a bit closer than that, but I was just wondering if a 30-06 with factory ammo say 165-180 gr would still have enough energy at 380 yards to take an elk?

Thank you.

Where do you plan to hit it? Yes a 06 will kill an ek at that range, And yes it can wound an elk at that range.

Just wondering if the caliber had the energy for that shot?

Not an elk, obviously, but at 399 yards- by GPS after the shot- this moose did not survive his encounter with a 190 Hornady BTSP, a load you can buy I believe, though I handload for hunting. He also didn't stop the bullet which traversed his chest before exitting forward the opposite hip. I won't tell you whether you should shoot at elk that far, but the cartridge is not the weak link in the question.

LeosRedFox got it right in a nutshell. I will expand on his comments.

I agree that if you punch a hole through their lungs, they're going to die. A 30-06 using Fereral Premium HE 180 grain Nosler Partitions will kill an elk at 400 yards. I know because I've done it. But not very often and it's certainly not the optimum situation. I would not recommend trying to shoot big game at that range unless the conditions are perfect, you have a perfect rifle rest and lots of time to make a clean, careful shot. So yes, it has the impact energy. But it's not recommended because there's a very high probability that you might wound the animal and not make a clean, quick kill.

I gather from your comment "I would rather get closer than that", you already knew much of what I have just written. It's still good to add caution to comments when who knows what rookie may be reading this open forum and get the wrong idea.

I appreciate everyone's concerns, it isn't my intention to go out and take a shot beyond my capabilities, I assure you it was just a question on ballistics pertaining to a 30-06, not looking to go out and emulate the Best of The West gang...really.

I think the question is a good, and fair, one. Certainly a shot that will break shoulders demands significantly more energy than a broadside lung shot.
Personally I would rather hit them "to hard" and kill them twice as dead :), than risk a wound, utilizing the variables over which I have control.

Barkoff, I guess the question then becomes how much energy is enough energy for elk?

Barkoff, in my opinion, yes.

That doesn't make it the best reasonable choice for 400-yard elk killing- that would be the .338 WM- nor does it mean that most people have much bidness shooting that far at an elk, but simply put, yes a 30-06 will kill an elk at 400 yards.

How could it NOT, assuming (big assumption) proper bullet placement?? Heck, it'll kill them even with very poor bullet placement... it'll just be days later, and miles away.

I don't want to get sucked into some sort of war here so I'll try and be brief and then scoot. In my opinion, the question isn't so much what will kill an elk at XXX yards, it's what will give you the best reasonable chance of killing the elk and recovering it. Elk can be tenacious as HELL. I've not seen either of my mere two elk show that, they both went down pretty fast... but a couple elk shot by my friends, that I helped with, were incredibly resiliant after being pretty well-hit. An elk running a few hundred yards can be a real problem. A lot can go wrong in elk country to mess up the recovery of an elk that goes a long ways. Snow coming in cost my friend Jerry an elk with a good blood trail, for example.

So... since I do practice out to 400 and beyond, I use rifles/cartridges/bullets that I feel will put the whip to an elk at those ranges, and they are bigger than a 30-06.

But if I had to, I'd load up my 30-06 and go elk huntin'- which is exactly what I DID do for several years. But I wouldn't be under the illusion that I had the BEST reasonable choice for hammering one at 400 yards.

All just in my humble opinion.

Energy doesn't kill critters. Hitting them in the right spot does.

By the way, standing by for flames.....

This should liven things up a bit.

Absolutlely! Anything else.

SEE BELOW

Well the facts are you could wound an elk at that range with a 378 Weatherby. Know your gun and know your ability.

Exactly...

Yes, an 06 has plenty of remaining energy to kill an elk at 400 yds. Most modern bottleneck cartridges do. But the secret is enough bullet.........

I've killed enough elk at longish range with 06 class cartridges with both conventional and premium bullets to think at longer ranges, regular jacketed bullets often open up less than they would at closer ranges, and consequently will penetrate further than one would expect.

I guess you could say the test of a cartridge is longer ranges, the true test of a bullet is point blank range........


Casey

It ain't what you shoot 'em with, it's where you shoot 'em.

Like JB says, "Shoot them in the front half".....


Casey

This picture makes me hungry.

Travis

The last bull elk that I shot was at 465 yard measured by laser. I shot it with a 30-06 using a 165 grain Nosler ballistic tips. I aim to high and hit it in the spine over the shoulders -- it did not move.

In 1985, I killed a 3 x 3 off of Decker flats (next to Yellowstone Park) hitting it 3 out of 4 shots off hand with a 270 using 130 grain factory ammo. I aimed approximately 3 feet above the back. I found 3 bullets holes in a 6 inch group behind the front shoulders. It died within 50 Yards of Yellowstone.

Both of these elk were on the run.

I think your'e better off with the 30x06 you can shoot, than any so called magnum.

I have shot elk and seen elk shot with a number of different cartridges from the .270 up. Their bullets all had plenty of energy. The question for me these days is not whether the bullet has enough energy, but whether I do, to haul the dang elk out of the hills.

I don't have 1st hand experience with this scenario but if I had to guess I'm comfortable stating that the job can get done (400 yards with an '06) provided that you're a good shot and you're using a quality bullet.

I personally know someone who has taken an elk at 430 yards using an '06 with 180g NP. He told me he dropped him with 1 shot.

This question reminds me of those energy or game weight tables where the 30-06 is suitable for 400 yards but at 401 yds the bullet will bounce off of them.

Well, it's the fault of gun writers, ammo manufacturers, and others who make a big deal about how much energy is needed for X kind of game animal. Life just doesn't work that way.

I have shot a bunch of big game (bigger than deer, that is) at ranges out to 450 uards or so with the standard, 2700-fps 180-grain .30-06. If the bullet goes in the right place, the animal dies quickly. I have yet to see any brand of 180 fail to expand at around 400 yards, or fail to penetrate the vitals.

a little fodder......Terminal ballistics demand that it takes roughly 1000 FT/lbs kinetic to achieve adequate penetration to inflict enough damage to kill a large, soft skinned animal. IE.. Elk/Deer/Man. NOTICE, I do not account for improper shot placement, only for penetration. The sample below is of kinetic energy taken from ballistic charts on soft targets at muzzle through 500 yrds in 100 yrd increments.

30-06 (150 grains @ 2700 FPS): 2428, 2037, 1697, 1403, 1150, 922

Kqw911:

There are some very qualified ballistics experts that frequent this forum. I am not one of them. I can only relate my personal experience and I look for qualified infomation sources to guide my decisions.

One source, presumeably qualified, is the Colorado Division of Wildlife. It's interesting to note that the CO DOW hunting regulations coincide with your citation of 1,000 ft. lbs. impact energy to kill elk. They include that as one of the minimum properties for legal caliber/bullet for elk hunting.

KC

JB, I like your view point on this one. It rings true to so many out here that hunt elk.

On a side note, on another forum I'm on I really find it alarming that guys like myself who use .270's, 06's, and many non magnum calibers for elk hunting get constantly harassed and belittled for our choices. We all state that there is nothing wrong with the big mags, but in the end we choose to use the standard calibers for elk hunting. Most of those that chastise us just cannot wrap their head around the fact that these calibers work. It's such a breathe of fresh air to come here and see that most respect another's choice and are able to see the merits of such.

For me I would personally not have a problem shooting to 350 yards on an elk with my .270 and 150 gr. NP's. Its a shot I'm comfortable with and know that it is enough to do the job.

I also own a .300 WM and have shot one elk with it thus far. Used 180 gr. Winchester Power Points and the shot was 300 yards. Performed flawlessly also. Now I've got the dilemma of choosing which rifle I want to hunt with. Killed bulls with both guns. Tough choice, but I like the fact I'm comfortable and confident with each.

Kelly

Kgw911,

Where did you that about 1000 foot-pounds being necessary for penetration?

I can think of all sorts of examples that prove that assumption wrong, so I'm just wondering where it came from.

These discussions are always entertaining. Whenever I am thinking about getting some super magnum I have to remind myself that the Merriams Elk were wiped out by 30-30s, 44-40s, 38/55, 44 Stevens and a host of other rounds that are considered only good for punching paper now.

I think determining the foots pounds required to kill an elk is probably about as exact a science as determining how many foot pounds are required to "haul the dang thing out of the hills".

(lessee here, 500 pounds of elk X 3 miles X 5280 ft/mile... SHEESH! That's a whole freeking buncha foot pounds)

Royce

In my first response I said it can and might not work. I'll give you an example, The 1st really big bull that I shot was in 1983. He was pumped up and pissed off. I shot him at 150 yards with a 30-06 using 165g Noslers. I hit him 5 times. Twice through the lungs, He still went 1/2 mile with me having to chase him down.

Since then I've killed numerous elk with a 120g Partition from a 25-06 at 300 yards and they have collapsed on the spot. But they were relaxed and not worried about being hunted or in rut.

So was it the difference in the caliber, was it just one bull hyped up on adrenaline and the others being dead before they knew they were hit.

Each animal will be different. A good shot in the boiler room with 1000lbs ( I try to stay over 1500ft/lbs) of energy will usually put an elk down. And a 30-06 can usually do that.

A 30-06 shooting 168g Barnes TSX will have 1568 ft/lbs of energy at 400 yards.

A 300 WSM shooting that same 168g Barnes TSX will have 1875 ft/lbs of energy at 400 yards. You are talking 300 ft/lbs of differnce at 400 yards.

So we consider the previous post about needing more than 1000ft/lbs. Yes the 30-06 has enough energy. If we compare the difference between it an a magnum. Not that much difference in energy.

As I've become a better hunter and have become very successful at harvesting more and bigger elk, I've stopped hunting them with the 25-06. I've also gained 50 lbs from what I weighed when I bought the 25-06 and can tolerate the recoil of the bigger guns better now than I could as a young man. But I can say, that I never lost an elk that I shot at with a 25-06, so I think the caliber and bullet weight is something we argue too much about.

Yep and then some, but 400 is a long shot no matter what the bullet launcher you are using. Its the wind drift that will get you sooner rather than drop. I like the 338 for elk hunting and for moose, for no other reason, I have a 338 that I love to shoot and well since I bought that rifle in 1996 its been my go to for the fool reason, because its what I packed. Of Late the last three years or so I been shooting a 7mm Remingtion Mag again, and I have yet to be able to tell the difference. A 30-06 is about as perfect a North American hunting cartridge as you can get, its even better today because of way better bullets and powders. You can do a tad better with a bigger cartridge, but it will cost you in terms of recoil and rifle weight. And when its all said and done, you would not be under gunned with a 7 x 57 or a 308. The key to elk hunting is to put yourself were the elk are, that seems to be the 2nd hardest part of the program, the first being packing the thing out.

My thinking exactly. I like to call them in to where I can drive up and get them.

No, that'll do it, thank you.

I read an article somewhere in the past (I.m old)about the foot pounds of energy theory as pertains to killing critters. The author made the comparison of a 458 Win and 500 grain solid bullet needed for elephants, if extrapolated down to a whitetail deer, would make the 22 long rifle rimfire the perfect deer cartridge. I have told the true story of a buddy of mine who has killed 25 bull elk with a 30-06, and 165 gr Nosler pt, and has not lost any. Longest shot 430 yards. Take an 06 learn how and when to shoot it, the same as you should with ANY RIFLE, standard or magnum, and you can kill any elk no problem.

Thank you for that. Not a guy who studies tables, just a guy who watched a hunter on a show make a shot I wouldn't have tried, only because I'm not that good of a shot. I think you sniffed out the answer to the question I should have asked better. That being would a 30-06 provide the energy for all things to work as they should with a good shot at 400 yds. I have read the 30-06 has killed a lot of men at greater ranges, but not sure about a 500lb animal.

I hear many call the 30-30 a good 150-200 yard caliber, I would wonder then if that would mean the 30-30 would be a bad choice even for a good shooter at 350 not having the punch to expand a bullet at those ranges.

In other words how does a new hunter go about learning what the 30-06 can do? Certainly we wouldn't want somebody learning by trial and error, and we wouldn't want a new shooter to learn by studying those ballistic tables, so I guess the only thing left to do is come to the 24 campfire and ask rookie questions.

Barkoff, below are my coments on a older thread on this topic.





It is kind of like poker.
You could win a hand with just one Ace (shot placement).
You have a better chance at winning the hand with a pair of Aces (Shot placement and premium bullet)
You have an even better chance at winning with a set of Aces (Shot placement, premium bullet and lots of energy)
You have an fantastic chance at winning with four Aces (Shot placement, premium bullets, lots of energy and good size caliber for the game hunted)

I personally like going All-In with as many Aces as I can get.
Heck, if the elk wants to come within 25 feet of me like the last cow I shot, it is like a King kicker.



To be completely honest, I am tired of people getting on their high horse about shot placement. We hopefully all know that shot placement is the most important aspect. I doubt and hope that noone on here is intentionally making poor shots or aiming at the hind quarter on broadside shots.

When you are talking shots out at 400 yards, it is obviously important to know your own shooting capability. I am not telling you anything you don't already know. But think about MOA. If your gun shoots 1" groups at 100 yards, at 400 yards, that group obviously grows to 4". Now with wind, that can be measurable, but not 100% predictable throughout bullet travel, that group grows even more. What I am getting at is even with a perfect hold and shot, there is generally at least a 6" variation at those yardages....which is in my opinion very optimistic.
That could mean rib cage, shoulder, better or worse.
I try to make sure I get as many Aces in my hand as possible before finding myself in the situation.

I am not going to give an energy number, because I go higher than any of the numbers quoted on this forum. Plus, as my comments in the old thread, it is not that simple as to just give an energy number.....you must consider energy, caliber, momentum, etc. etc.
Wound Channel is the key and I don't have a formula derived for that yet.

For what it's worth....
I shoot a 7mm WSM with 160 grain Accubonds for Whitetail sized animals. I shoot a 325 WSM with 200 grain Accubonds for Elk and bigger animals.

Yes. First bull elk I ever saw killed was shot, twice, at a bit over 350 yards (pre rangefinder, we paced it over pretty level ground). He was shot with a M70 30/06,3X scope,and factory 150 WW Power Points. I watched through bino's as my buddy hit too far back; the bull hunched, walked off a bit...Second shot, the hit was directly back of the front legs,centered in the chest. His legs buckled immediately and he collapsed.It was all over inunder 10 seconds.

BTW, this was a wood stocked M70,and the scope had no power rings on it

The 30/06 has been around killing big game for over 100 years; a lot of that game has been a lot bigger than any elk,and it just continues to roll stuff.With todays bullets,it is better than it has ever been.

Wow. Well said.

Cacciatore,

I guess I'm going to hasve to disagree with your little essay, on several grounds:

1) I have killed a number of big game animals out to 450 yards or so with rifles that wouldn't average much better than 1-1/2" at 100 yards. This does NOT mean the bullet can land anywhere up to 4 times that much at 400 (6"). Instead it means the variation FROM POINT OF AIM is only 3", half of 6". Every shot landed within 3" of where I intended. Super rifle accuracy is not necessary for shooting elk at 400 yards, or even mule deer.

2) If your idea of s super-powerful cartridge is a .325 WSM with 200-grain bullets, well then go ahead and think so. But the .325 isn't all that much more powerful than the .30-06, even on paper, and .015" difference in bullet diameter means zip in real life. Despite what Winchester and some gun writers would like us to think, the .325 is no .338 Winchester Magnum.

If you really want to move up the power ladder SIGNIFICANTLY you'll have to use something bigger than a .325.

#1 I fully agree with you on your math. I maybe didn't state it correctly. I wasn't talking plus/minus 6 inches. Either way, the fact is that equipment and cartridges aren't perfect. Then we add some wind variation, human error, and other variables, and noone on this forum can say they can place their first shot through a Cheerio at 400 yards. Even though I am sure some will claim they can.


#2 I didn't say that the 325 is a super powerful cartridge. I really like the 30-06 and the 338 as well, but think my 325 will do me well in the field. In many places on this forum people have talked about 1500 ftlbs of energy as the "magic number" for elk. The cartidge/bullet I shoot carries just shy of 2200 ftlbs at 400 yards which is probably all of 400 ftlbs more than the majority of 30-06's at that distance (approx. 25% higher). To me that is pretty significant.
As for the increase in caliber, I think we underestimate the difference caliber makes on wound channel. I am not saying that from 30 to 325 is huge, but from my 7mm to my 325 is pretty significant. I consider wound channel not only the hole the bullet causes, but also the shock wave propagation through the animal. In my opinion, and I am sure some sort of analysis/study could be done, an increase in caliber given the other factors remain the same, makes an underestimated difference on wound channel.

Amen to that, JB.

I've had no problem at all killing elk with 270, 280, 30-06, 308 class cartridges. Carrying a light, well fitting rifle, practice at shooting in field positions, basic knowledge of game anatomy versus shot angle, and getting the shot off quickly has greatly improved my practical shot placement over the years. Not bench shooting. And especially not shooting a rifle that kicks me into next year.

My 338WM spends lots of time in the back of the safe. I love it, but I don't need it to kill elk.

Mule Deer; well said and well put. You are almost too logical for a rifle loony, there are times ( usually new gun buying time) when the two don't go well together. But I've seen you at new gun time, and you don't let it get in your way.
You also know me and this whole energy/ shot placement deal. Killed elk with all sorts of calibers,the two favorites being .300 H&H and the 7x57. Elk did not seem to show a preference.
Very thankfully its no longer an issue with me because a few years ago MY energy level went south, I am happily and gratefully leaving the elk to younger men!
Ingwe

Yes, it does seem that it's getting more difficult to hawl them out, as I get older.

I didn't get an elk last year. I had one good opportunity though. I had a three-minute look at a five-point bull standing broadside at 200 yards. Just as I was about to start squeezing the trigger, my buddy leaned over and whispered into my ear "KC we are seven miles from the truck." Had it been a six-point, I would have finished the job.

KC

KC,

Takes a real hunter to make that choice. Being fairly young I'm pretty gung ho to shoot elk wherever I can find them. Even miles into the back country. However, after having a pretty big dose of reality the last couple years I now have it stuck in my head to think of getting said animal out before pulling the trigger also.

Cacciatore,

Let me follow up just a little.

On (1), even a medium-sized elk's really vital area is at least a foot wide. It isn't hard to hit at 400 yards for a decent rifleman. The cartridge has little to do with it, or even half-inch accuracy. What has something to do with it is the person on the trigger.

On (2) again. According to the world's top forensic ballisticians, there is no "shock wave" that makes any difference in killing power. Yes, there are ripples that fan out from the bullet's impact, but they have no bearing on what we are talking about.

What does is the permanent wound channel, the severe damage to vital tissue. This has nothing to do with hydrostatic shock (which doesn't exit) or any of the other mumbo-jumbo that hunters like to talk about. It has to do with how big a hole a bullet puts through an animal, and this has more to do with bullet contruction than minor differences in kinetic energy, such as 400 foot-pounds.

Yes, bullet diameter has something to do with killing power, but the difference between a .308 and .323 bullet isn't enough to be seen when shooting either ballistic "media" or an elk. Believe me, I have seen plenty of the holes from both. In fact, you would be extremely discouraged if you saw the permanent wound channels made in various kinds of ballistic media with the bullets from a bunch of different cartridges.

There is nothing wrong with a .325 and 200-grain AccuBonds for elk hunting. But it isn't a .338, much less a .375. It is just another of dozens of cartridges of somewhere around .30 caliber that do a good job--if a good bullet is put in the right place.

But another 400 foot-pounds or 20 grains or bullet or .015 of bullet diameter will not make much difference. Look at it this way: 400 foot pounds is about the energy a 50-grain Nosler Ballistic Tip from a .223 retains at 400 yards. That is enough to kill a 2-pound prairie dog quite neatly, and will even kill a coyote--if it hits the coyote in the right place. But it ain't going to make any difference to a 750-pound elk.

In fact, a couple of years ago in Africa I watched a guy trying to kill a zebra about the size of a bull elk with a .325. It didn't go too well, even at 150 yards, and not because the .325 doesn't have enough power. Instead the problem was the bullet. He was shooting the 220-grain Power Point factory load, a fairly stout bullet that generally retains at least 2/3 of it's weight. But it also expands way too widely for deep penetration--and wasn't getting all the way through the zebra's chest. The impact energy was close to 3000 foot-pounds, but the bullet wasn't making a permanent wound channel through enough vital tissue. And as far as the zebra was concerned, the "shock wave" didn't exist.

Just one question: How many elk have you shot with your .325?

The DOW lower limit for elk is 85 grain bullet with 1000 ft/lbs at 100 yards. An 85 grain bullet launched at 2600 fps gives 1000 ft/lbs of energy.

JB, That's a great example and reminder of how unimpressive "energy" alone can be. There is really nothing like seeing a hundred something -or more- pound animal absorb "tremendous" energy to realize the huge difference between using shoulder fired rifles to blow up small critters (like PDs) and humanely killing bigger game. (I have sometimes wondered just what it would take to actually "PD" and animal the size of a deer or bigger. I'm certain I don't want to fire such a weapon from the shoulder though!) And, neither recoil nor muzzle blast impress target species in the least either I've noticed, another phenomenon which some folks seem to get side-tracked by.

Thanks once again for your common sense, evidence based opinion. Lots of experience and less voodoo, anytime.

Exactly what MD has been talking about all along, great advice.

I just can't imagine that anyone could think the 30.06 not powerful enough for elk at any reasonable range. It is probably the most widely used all-around big game round in this country and likely the world too. I don't use it much lately. My current favorite the .280AI with the 160gr. bullet, but it has nothing over the old .06 in the real world. I think that one should use enough gun to get the job done, but after reaching that point more power doesn't seem to make them any deader.

I have seen too many broken legs from hunters taking too long shots, it works most of the time, but sooner or later you going to shoot low...I prefer to limit shots to 300 yards...I "hunt" elk. If everything is perfect I might take a 400 yard broadside shot on a deer or elk and more likely on a big moose, but I try to decrease the range in every way possible. 400 yards is streatching the 30-06 IMO.

Heck, 400 yards is stretching me a whole lot more than my .30-06!

FC

I gotta admit I'm somewhat of the Caccitore mindset. It is both correct and incorrect to simply state something like "energy doesn't kill critters". How about we say "damage" kills critters and "damage to vitals" kills even better? How much "energy" does an arrow have? Do arrows kill elk? I think we'd agree they do, IF they cut their way (do damage) to enough things that matter. But bullets don't work like arrows. They are MUCH smaller and, compared to a broadheaed, very dull. So, what does a bullet require to do what is asked of it? Some viable combination of weight and velocity. Here's the problem, I've basically just set forth the parameters of kenetic energy, haven't I? Let's try a quick little run of scenarios.

I'm holding a 250gr .338 Nosler Partition. I now:

Walk up to an elk and throw it at his lungs from 10' as hard as I can. Assuming he doesn't fall over laughing, I've accomplished nothing.

Now I get a really strong slingshot and bust him with another Partition. He may actually feel that from 10' but that's about it.

Now we can keep walking up the scale adding a couple hundred FPS as we go and what will we find? At some point (and don't ask me where) from 10' I'm gonna get that bullet through that dude's hide and into a lung. Yea! But how much damage did I really do? Did I even get the bullet to expand much? What if I gotta do this at 100 yds instead of 10'? What if instead of him just standing there broadside I'm going to have to go through a shoulder? NOW how much more am I gonna need? And at what distance can I maintain that lethality without having to add, dare I say it, more "energy"?

Jump forward and ask yourself if an '06 will kill an elk. You betcha. Grizzly? Well, yeah. Big Brownie? I'm sure it can but you'll never see me go afield with that plan. Cape Buffalo? Elephant? I'll tell you right now I'm positive somebody, and likely several somebody's have done so. You want to try? Be my guest but I'll stay in the Range Rover thank you.

See, my argument is that there really is a practical standpoint for what "can" work and what, quite simply, is "more appropriate". I wouldn't think twice about a quarter facing bull at 250 yds with my .340 and a good rest. I honestly doubt I'd take that shot with a .243 off a bench in ideal conditions. Move that bull broadside to me at 75yds and all I'm worried about is how far I'm going to have to pack out.

Sorry I got long winded but I'm just one of those guys that, if given the option (and thank God I am) of what to carry afield I'll tend to err on the side of "more than I'll likely ever need but enough for even the worst case scenario".

For the record, I hope all of you DRT everything you ever shoot at and I don't care what caliber you do it with.

I am not arguing that more rifle isn't better. I have killed several semi-loads of big game with cartridges from the various .300 magnums on up, and am a big fan not just of the .300 magnums but the .338, 9,3x62 and .375 H&H, among others, because they have killed a lot of game for me.

But I have also shot quite a few bigger-than-deer animals with the .30-06 at ranges from 350-450 yards, and it worked just fine in every instance. I do not claim to be the world's best shot, but it worked, and I saw it work. The bullets did not bounce off, and they expanded and penetrated sufficiently, often more than sufficiently.

The only reason I keep posting on this thread is that somebody with a vague idea of what actually kills animals (such as shock waves) started talking about how a .325 WSM is a big jump up from a .30-06. This has not been my experience. In my experience it takes something like a .338 with 225's at the minimum and preferably something of .35 and up with 250-300 grain bullets to beat the old '06 in the hands of somebody who can shoot. And even then you won;t notice much difference on many animals.

One quote I probably use too often comes from my friend Phil Shoemaker: "Anybody who says the .30-06 is inadequate for big game hunting is inadvertently commenting on their own marksmanship." That may not be the exact quote, but it is close...

I think you can take all the 30's 8mm's and 338's and put them in one big pile,and you can't tell the difference.....

Guyandarifle, good post. I quess my position is that beinging with say, a 6.5x55 or so, more gun will make little if any difference in killing power on game up to elk, even if rounds as large as the .300Win. are used. I personally have no meaningfull experience with anything larger that. This is given that the range is kept reasonable and for my argument that means 400yds or less. My position also assumes good bullets are used.

My thought's exactly... which is why I like a light 300 WSM the best of all the medium magnums.

If you have to ASK...The answer is NO...

I'm not sure that I agree with that (which isn't saying that I necessarily disagree either) but....

I think that anyone who has hunted "a bit" with a variety of calibers and cartridges in this power range will easily recall some of the instances where either "all that power" was not tremendously impressive, or "that puny thing" did "that"? And that is the reality that one is faced with. Though statistically a certain cartridge may have some advantage over others, there is enough overlap in the anomalies to prevent the decisive statements we would like to be able to make about our favorites. And that is probably what has led me back to where I started in many respects. The plain, boring old 30-06 - a blued and walnut one even- has been put to use quite a bit these days though there is no question that the old 340 will knock things just as dead. They both work well when used well; they both fail equally when not.

...and what Ray, and John, (and even Phil by paraphrase) say is priceless.

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

Jeff: If I am going to compare cartridges and bore diameter,I guess it's only fair to keep velocity levels the same,or close. I don't think anyone would rationally argue that a 340 is not more "powerful" than a 30/06,due to a number of factors including heavier bullets, more frontal area, higher velocity,etc. All these little factors add up.A fairer comparison might be a 300 Weatherby with 200's against whatever you want to feed a 325 or 340.

But we have developed this "picket fence" mentality here, where we seek to fill every little gap in the caliber lineup,trying to distinguish among minute differences in caliber/cartridge performance,until the "line" or distinctions of performance between them gets very blurred;so that if we take a 200 gr 308 bullet, and a 200 gr 323 bullet,and start them at the same speed,smash them into elk bodies and make them expand, that .015" diameter difference becomes sort of...well...irrelevant...and trying to distinguish between their lethal effectiveness becomes a hollow conversation...the animals we shoot with such comparable stuff don't distinguish;they just die from either.

Bullet performance clouds the issue even more,making the already fuzzy lines of performance between these comparable cartridges even more obscure...and if we think, by going to a 325 from a 30,that you are going to get bigger holes in game,a difference in performance that you can discern, you won't. It's a pipe dream.The difference, to the extent it exists, will come more from bullet structure and expansion characteristics than minute differences in bore size.

I would say the same when people say that a .300 Mag is a significant step up from a 7mm Mag. How's that for stirring the pot?

Sure do. Perhaps I was forgetting the quarry in question here, too. The closest thing with which I have some depth of experience is our northern moose, and perhaps I forget that they aren't the same thing as elk - or even the same as all other moose in various parts of the world- nor are they always hunted the same.

As for the "hydraulenergetic" transfer of the bullet's speed, momentum, and power, or what-have-you, the "shock", perhaps better labeled "stunning effect" of a bullet's "pressure wave" as it passes, might work just as certain pressure points - usually involving nerve centers in the human body work. If a bullet passes near enough some of them, it may cause a temporary or permanent disruption. I think that may account for the way some animals appear to be hit hard but then recover, while others, though no real obvious immediately vital parts or torn or bruised, may be put down permanently by a shot that may not even look very lethal, at least not in the short term.

I do know that 3000+ ft/lbs applied to the stomach of an ungulate can do little more than cause an animal to "hunch up," while one-third as much energy - or even less- can "shatter" a liver, causing immediate lethal bleeding. Obviously, those are two completely different things, both related to a bullet's "shock" effect, but neither of them causes lethal "shock" to the animal.

Jordan:With certain bullets,you may be right!

Klik:.....maybe the reason a 7mag floors a moose one time,and a 338 doesn't...chunks of metal hurtling through elk or moose bodies can't be good things

Judging expansion by the exit in the hide can very miss leading and unreliable. I have seen on many occasions small exits in the hide with massive damage inside.
Here is an example of one. Lastr year my friend Ronnie shot a small Deer at about 60 yards with a 130 grain Partition forma 270 win. The exit on the off side was barely larger than the entrance, yet when we loaded the Deer in the truck shunks of lung tissue feel out of the Deer's mouth. When field dressing we found the internalk damage to be extremely massive

JB, good post. I am excited to see you trying to educate the masses with the truth. A daunting task to say the least, especially when perception has became their reality. If incorrect information is stated enough times it is then perceived to be factual. As you stated (so well) FPE is a poor indicator of terminal effectiveness

Right on BobinNH

Hi Bob. Always a pleasure.

I was just foolin' around; hope that was clear. The "incrementalism" of us cartridge geeks is laughable- no argument from me.

JUST FOR GRINS, to go backwards to the .325 WSM not being a significant step up from a 30-06, and to use your like-velocities rule... a 30-06 will push a 165-gn bullet at 2900+ fps.

A .325 will push a slightly wider 200-gn bullet at 2900+ fps.

Is there a significant difference- I don't know. I do know, if I were hunting ELK with a 30-06 and 165's, I'd feel the need to use a "hard" bullet, while with my .325 I feel I can use more of a "mid-premium" bullet, like the Accubond, because I have a little bit of buffer there. To me, that's a significant difference right there, one rarely mentioned in these debates. Larger calibers give you more latitude in bullet selection.

Gosh, I hope it's clear to you and JB and Klik and the other good folks on this thread that I'm not arguing, nor claiming to be an expert. I'm just thinking out loud and enjoying having a conversation with other hunters. The amount of poo-flinging around here has about worn me out.

Jeff: I was not arguing or chastising or accusing or saying what you posted was wrong; I was having a discussion with members of the thread in general. Although I was "responding" to you, I was not directing everything to you.

I think the 325 WSM is a fine cartridge for its' purpose, which is to split the baby between a 300 mag and a 338 in a lighter-weight manageable package.

I think,pointed properly, and using good bullets in both,you are gonna have dead elk with both. I know you like AB's and it seems they do a good job in the heavier weights and modest velocities,so as you know they will do fine.Mostly I use good bullets so don't worry about whether I can use a larger cartridge and a softer bullet. Were I to get a 325 tomorrow, the first bullets I'd reach for would be 200 gr Partitions,and if I planned on using the rifle on bigger stuff, a 220 Swift Aframe.

jwp: Thanks!

BTW what you observed with the Partition is very common and I have seen it many times.Sometimes you will recover the partition when it does not punch through,and it is generally found having blown off the nose back to the partition;expansion and damage having come earlier.......but you knew that!

I'd like to make a couple more comments about "creeping incrementalism."

One story my friend John Haviland ("Elk" on the Campfire) tells on himself is about the 7mm Remington Magnum. John is about my ago, 50-something, which means he also grew up in Montana when the Seven Em Em Maggie was THE hot cartridge, even more than the .300 WSM was a few years ago. Everybody had to have one, and so John and all his buddies bought them.

John handloaded 160-grain spitzers, I believe Speer Mag-Tips, because that's what he could afford. Then he went out and whacked a pile of animals--deer, elk, black bears, etc.--and the Big Seven proved itself exactly the wonder cartridge that everybody said it was.

Eventually John bought his first chronograph, years after his 7mm Magnum. The load that he'd been using all those years, the load that had dumped a bunch of elk, the load that his handloading manual said got around 3000 fps--well, that load was going around 2700 fps at the muzzle. This is about what a "modern" 7x57 load can do.

Of course the load was instantly ruined. He changed powders and bullets until he got "magnum" velocities. Funny thing was, the rifle didn't kill any better....

One more comment about the .325. It is a fine cartridge. Heck, they are all fine cartridges. But upping the bore diameter of the .300 WSM case to .323 only gains a little more than 1% velocity with the same bullet weight, according to the 1/4 rule. This is about 35 fps in loads going around 2900 fps.

This slight gain is more than negated at longer ranges by the lower ballistic coefficient of 8mm bullets of the same weight as .30 caliber bullets. The 200-grain .30 caliber AccuBond, for instance, has a listed BC of .588, while the 200-grain 8mm AccuBond's listed BC is .450.

At 400 yards a 200-grain AB started at 2900 from .300 WSM is going 2283 fps, while a 200 AB started at 2900 from a .325 is going 2137 fps. So the .325 with this bullet isn't even as "powerful" as the .300 WSM at 400 yards. (Unless, of course, we ascribe some magic powers to the .015" greater bullet diameter of the .325.)

Now let's load a 200-grain AccuBond to 2600 fps in the .30-06. I have generally found this velocity can be beaten somewhat, but we won't quibble. Here we find the bullet still going 2022 fps at 400 yards, a little more than 100 fps slower than the .325 200 AB started 300 fps faster at the muzzle. The difference in foot-pounds is now down to a little over 200.

Run similar calculations with the 220-grain 8mm A-Frame started at 2800 fps (which, given the tendency of the A-Frame toward creating higher pressures, might be 100 fps too much) and we find 400-yarn energy figures to be at most 1800 foot-pounds--or about like a .30-06 with the 180 AccuBond started at 2600 fps.

Enough ballistic gack--at least for now.

Uummm....What he said....

I was gonna say that ,but don't know how.......


PS:The 160 7 Em Em at 3100 is MAGIC

Perfectly stated and I agree 200%..

A chrono will mess with your head, that's for certain.

I chrono'd a book max load of RL19 behind a 140 in my 7mm08 the other day. Book says 2922 fps; I got 2625 fps!! I have a buddy who's pretty convinced he's zapping deer at 2900 fps with that load...

Jeff: That is pretty funny...seen those chronographs destroy a lot of rifles......I guess we all have

I have no idea WHY the discrepency was so great; I suspect because the test barrel was 26" and mine is 22", and RL19 needs the extra room to burn, and this 7mm-08, while fabulous in every other regard, has a sloooooow barrel...

H4350 gets 140's perking in that rifle though, go figure.

Hey Bob... PM sent...

We have been through this before on the Campfire: All the powder that is going to burn (at least 99% at the pressures it's designed to burn at) are burned within 4 inches AT MOST in front of the chamber. At that point about all that exists is the hot gas produced by the powder. This gas continues to expand until the bullet exits the muzzle, at least in centerfire cartridges.

Now, slower-burning powders tend to produce more gas, because the powder charge is greater than with faster powders. But no, longer barrels are not needed to "burn" the extra powder. In fact the same powders that produce top velocities in longer barrels will also produce the highest velocities in shorter barrels.

The reason the published load produced different velocities in your barrel and the test barrel is length of barrel, throat and bore differences, and lot of powder. It has nothing to do with the powder keeping on burning.

JB, Jeff has been told this before, but he chooses to perpetuate incorrect info because it has been told as fact for so long that some believe it to be fact.

Thanks JB, I didn't know that! Damn facts, messing with my theories <g>.

Uh... how to explain the fireball out the muzzle of my short 45/70 with H335, but not other powders?

The fire ball is a re-ignition caused from the mixing with the atmosphere (oxygen)

Exactly.

Smokeless powder "contains" its own oxygen. Otherwise it wouldn't burn inside a sealed chamber (the barrel). But by the time the expanding gas exits the muzzle it is somewhat "oxygen starved," so reignites because it is still really hot.

Different powders produce different fireballs. The size of the fireball depends mostly on muzzle pressure.

I tend to not read long threads, but got into this one this morning. Nicely done with several great contributions.

Shock waves... argh. :p

Will

This was an excellent thread. Thank You, Mule Deer/JB. I was looking at purchasing a .325 WSM. I have a .338 WM and a 30-06 and maybe that is enough. Unforunately the gunsmith who build my 30-06 made the chamber so tight that he says that I should not shoot 180's in it. The gun will shoot Robin Hood's. I think that gun builder's are more interested in accurancy at the brench than hunting. This summer, I am going to work up a load starting low for 180 AB's. Then I am going to purchase a chronograft and learn the truth.

Ok, my personal loading experience is brief and "by the book" so the nuances are beyond my current meager skills but a few of these last posts have me confused. I've professed my ignorance so be gentle.

If all this powder is burned up in X distance (4" or whatever) exactly what is "re-igniting"? If the powder is burned it's burned isn't it?

It is, and has, been my understanding that the point of longer barrels is to give those cartridges with large powder charges of slower burning powders the room to best utilize the expanding gasses of said loads. I read a really interesting article where different rifles/calibers/powders were chrono'd and then the barrel shortened and the results tallied. I may try to find that and post it for others to review.

At any rate I think I may have gotten turned around on some of the last few posts here concerning the relationship between powder, velocity and barrel length.

abc,

Your '06 may indeed have a tight chamber, but what you are describing is, I believe, better described as a short throat. The good news is, the throat can be cut longer if you want. I have a Pac-nor .358 that had a very short throat. Now it doesn't. It's correctable. If your smith did the final chambering, then he should have the throating reamer.

MD, is it ok to phrase it thusly:

"... a 26" barrel allows for slower powders, in particular, to be fully utilized?"

I'm still trying to get my brain around all the powder being burned in the first 4", yet we all know that some powders do seem to perk more with just a few inches more tube. Uh... Don't they?

I don't know how else to explain the sometimes drastic differences I've seen between book speeds and actual speeds with some powders, while in that same tube other powders perk like they should.

Not arguing, just wondering...

guyandarifle,

What re-ignites is the hot gas produced by the powder. It isn't burning inside the barrel anymore, but burns again when it hits the atmosphere.

In my experience (and I wrote a long article about this a couple of years ago) predicting velocity loss or gain with different powders in rifle barrels is impossible. There is the supposed "average" of 25-30 fps per inch, but I have seen anything from a slight GAIN when the same barrel is shortened an inch or two, to a los of 75 fps per inch.

Jeff,

The gas produced by slower powders expands longer than that of faster powders, and also produces more pressure at the muzzle, where the bullet gets its last push. Also, in any given cartridge/bullet combination, there is more slow powder used, so there is more gas created.

One problem you are probably running into with "book" data is that some manuals do not report the actual velocity they get with a pressure barrel. Instead they work up loads in a pressure barrel, then fire them for VELOCITY in a sporter rifle's barrel. Supposedly this gives us an idea what the loads might produce in our rifle, but factory rifles vary so much that the information is kinda useless. I much prefer the manuals where they report the actual velocities from pressure barrels. This provides the kind of information handloaders really need.

Among the manuals that list sporter-barrel velocities are Speer and Hornady. Among those which report pressure-barrel velocities are Nosler and Sierra.

Thanks MD.

Here's a couple of the multi powder/barrel length tests I mentioned earlier. Hopefully some people might find them interesting.

This one only deals with a .223.
http://www.accuratereloading.com/223sb.html

This one deals with several calibers but it's for pistols. Still interesting.
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/

There's another one out there that I can't find that might have been the best of the three so that's the one I can't locate. Anyway, good shooting to everyone.

OK, so it's basically semantics here.

The longer barrel isn't so some powders can BURN more effectively, but yet, the long barrel does help some powders to propel the bullet faster.

Thank you.

Thank goodness for good ol' H4350 <g>. That stuff just WORKS.

Mule Deer
This thread reminds me of an argument I had with a couple of college buddies a long time ago. I tried to explain to them that an acoustic speaker transforms an electromagnetic waveform to a hydrodynamic (in air) pressure waveform that we "hear". Used the analogy of ripples in a pond. Couldn't do it, they insisted that we heard it electromagnetically. Good luck with "THE TRUTH."

Part of the problem is that for years gun writers have written the same thing over and over, and some of them got it wrong in the first place. That may have ben the best information available at the time THEY learned, but "further research" changed things.

It's like when you write nowadays that deer do indeed see some colors. The guys who grew up reading that deer are totally color-blind will arguge with you, because Jack O'Connor or Francis Sell or somebody wrote otherwise. But the research has been done, more than once.

Jeff, I don't know if it's helpful, but long barrels help contain the pressures of still expanding gases rather than allowing better burns. IOW - and maybe that already isn't helpful and I'll only confuse things more - but as long as the pressure remains above the threshold where the bullet's friction would be allowing it to slow, it will increase speed. And if one powder's given pressure at any point in the barrel is higher than another's, that powder will be increasing the speed of that bullet more at that moment.

I suppose one might look at this another way - though it wouldn't be an entirely correct analogy. Would you rather send a bullet on it's way via 500 cubic centimeters (CCs) of air compressed to 5 CCs @ 63,000 psi or would you rather have 1000 CCs compressed to 6 CCs @ 48,000 psi. I know the math doesn't quite work on this and the numbers are just arbitrary. However, having more gas available means it can expand over a longer distance in the second example even though the overall pressure wasn't as high. As I said, it's not realistic, but it's kind of what happens when varying powders burn. Some make more gas than others and the pressure is useful as long as it's high enough.

Or that deer don't look up...
Or that longer shotgun barrels really " reach out there"
Or that...Oh, you get the drift...ad nauseum...
Ingwe

............and a looooong time ago (maybe, what, 15 - 20 years ago?). IIRC, the thought, back then, was that deer/elk had only cones or rods, but not both, like us. Seems that they do, like us, but to a lesser extent.

Blue tape anyone?........

I seem to remember you also saying (in an article about the 7mm Mauser?) that you had one go down pretty quick with a 270 Win.

For years my brother and I used a load in our 270s on deer with teh 130 grn Sierra Pro Hunters. The manual said the velocity of these was around 2950 fps. About 7 years ago I bought a chrony and found that the actual velocity was around 2750...

Maybe a bit off topic,but I loaded for enough years without a chronograph (before I knew any better)to know that,if you are a handloader without a chronograph,you're operating blind.Chronographs go a long way toward dispelling a lot of myths you hear talked about.

The two biggest lessons you learn earliest if you work with enough rifles is that barrels can vary enormously in terms of the velocity they deliver,and that case capacity absolutely rules when it comes to velocity.Quickly dispelled are the myths of smaller cartridges giving more velocity than bigger cartridges; and even if the smaller case comes close with lighter bullets, it will be left in the dust by the larger case as bullet weight increases.

If you get different results from these, someting ain't equal somewhere

Jeff, your results with the 7/08 are not surprising; I have seen the same thing myself many times; the reason there are no more 7/08's at my house.

I have also seen results with the 270 and 280 that mirror what M1 experienced;because they both have more capacity than the 7/08,it's a lot easier to get loads up to full potential..clearly, M1's loads were nowhere near "max".

This is the reason why running to ballistic tables to prove the worth of a pet caliber is a complete waste of time if you have not chronographed your loads, be they factory or handloads;unless you KNOW (not guess or interpolate)what your load is actually doing for speed,the tables are irrelevant;as are energy figures,which I pay utterly no attention to hardly at all.

You're spot on Bob. That load was over 3 grains under max. We'd been using those loads for about 5 years at the time and they accounted for quite a few deer. Funny thing is we couldn't tell the difference, we had great results, but it was a little eye opening (and learning experience) once I broke down and got a chrony and ran them through.

M1Garand,

Actually, I suspect you are thinking about a moose kill. The quickest I've ever seen a bull moose dropped was with a .270, in the hands of my wife Eileen. She shot it in the short ribs as it angled away at about 125 yards with a 150-grain Nosler Partition, and the moose barely took one step before piling up dead. We found the bullet in the far shoulder, under the skin.

Admittedly, it wasn't a giant moose, just an average Shiras bull. But it was still a bull moose!

Sweet Baby Jeebus... NOOOO!!

Grin...

Bob, my 7-08 has, for want of a better term, a " slow" barrel. That said it will crack 2800 fps w/140's if I twist it's tail with... You got it... Good ol' H4350.

I actually prefer to run 2700-2900 fps, so it works for me, as they say... But our deers are small, especially the ones I kill.

M1: Well, I always figured, if you're gonna carry a 270,might as well get 270 velocities I know it might not matter from the standpoint of the killing,and I'm not suggesting you redline your loads,but I have noticed many 270's group better operated at or near max,especially with todays powders and good rifles.

Plus if you are old fashioned like me,and want flat trajectory,no question 3100 fps shoots flatter than 2750,past 300 yards

Jeff: It has been awhile since I loaded the 7/08 and 7x57,but think I used RL 19 in each.H4350 works well,too......RL17 today???

I'm skeered of that RL17! Might make me re-work some perfectly good loads.

To answer your question; Yes, the round is perfectly capible of doing it.

I think you're right. It was in Handloader a few years ago in a great article about the 7mm Mauser.

That's exactly how I felt and worked up a load with RL22 more in line with 270 velocities. I'm always tweaking and have been getting great results with Ramshots Hunter as well.

When it comes to Elk I run out of energy way before my rifle does.

Could somebody please explain to this non hand loading hunter...

1) When the guy loads to the max grains of powder then finds the load is 200 FPS under max can he continue, one step at a time to increase powder while watching for signs of overpressure?

I'll tell you what, when that static shock hits me after reaching for the door handle of my truck in cold weather, it sure gets me to moving awfully fast.

I suspect no one wants to touch this one

...as JB has said numerous times, the answer is a very firm "maybe".....I will say that I have done it,and suspect most handloaders have a one time or another.

You can and I have. However, if you have a slow barrel you will always hit high pressure before you get decent velocity if you ever do. I have a 280 Rem & a 7 Wby with a slow barrel. It is very disappointing to discover such, most especially if you were counting on this round to deliver some laser beam loads.

The 280 is a 24" barrel and it will not even push a 140 beyond 2850 safely. The 7 Wby is also a 24" barrel and it runs, in some loads, 250 fps behind my 7 Rem Mag with identical powder charges. I realize the combustion process is different 'twixt the two 7's but it was a big heartbreaker when I finally realized these rifles had slow barrels.

In fact, the 7 Rem Mag actually has a fast barrel and defies logic with its speed.

In the end, it is all nothing but a roll of the dice.

Sorry to take so long to get back on this. Tests were performed by a British military analyst in search of the perfect man stopper. Animals, because their anatomic density is near that of man, were used to determine adaquate penetration and interior cavity dimension was used, subjectively, to determine fatal damage projections. Generally speaking, I have heard the 1000 Ft/Lbs rule used on more than one occasion to offer ballistic solutions. Much argument is also based on momentum vs kinetic energy as to which causes more damage relative to fatality. I have not studied the 2 effects side by side but a glance through one of the many books on Gunshot Ballistics should help to sway one to a particular side.

Foot Pounds Of Energy wil not rank terminal effectiveness and is useless to try

Foot-pounds of energy is but one tool that can be used, but like any tool it can be abused.

There are several truths here:
1. Energy MUST be transferred from the bullet to the target to have any effect on the target.
2. A bullet with ZERO energy will not kill anything.
3. A bullet with INFINITE energy will destroy the target, the earth and the universe.

To suggest, as many do, that energy is unimportant is to ignore physics. To predict a bullet�s effect based solely on its energy at impact is also to ignore physics � there are many other factors involved.

That said, I can hit targets equally well at 500 yards with my .30-30 and my .300 Win Mag. I will not, however, hunt game at 500 yards with the .30-30 and would not do so even if it used the same bullet. Energy DOES matter, it is simply not the sole determinant.

Somebody may have already posted this but, A few years ago Craig Boddington Killed a Bull Elk at 410 yards with a .270 and 150 grain partition. He said it died faster than any elk he had ever shot with any caliber.

Ron

No it does not ignore physics. The basis of this is Newtons 3 Laws of motion which sealk with forces, momentum transfers, and acceleration (velocity) they do not deal with energy relationships.




My 338 Lapua shooting a 300 grain bullet at 2791 FPS has 5188 FPE a 458 win mag at 2100 FPS with a 500 grain bullet has 4896 FPE is the 338 a beter choice for Elepahants because it has more FE? Of course not. That is only one example of the folly of use Energy as way to rate terminal performance.

The only things that matter are the amount of direct applied force and the amount of hydraulic pressure that is created. Those are the forces that create the wound channel, not Energy

Would you not argue that shooting a soft target of your choice in the head with a .22 may prove just as fatal as shooting him with a .44? Consider that the energy of a .44 would easily penetrate the skull but when pressed upon soft tissue may penetrate much like a pencil would through soft paper, a piercing not a blunt penetration while a .22 against the skull may have little to no effect on bone matter but through a soft entrance point will mushroom much quicker thereby increasing the potential effect on gray matter, relative to a kill. Directly applied force is therefore counter-acted in this case and cannot be used as primary measurement data.

Huh?? Surely you jest..

Without a transfer of energy, there is no applied force, no hydraulic pressure created.

With an infinite transfer of energy, the animal, the earth and the universe are destroyed.

Everything else is just a shade of grey.

The book (Fackler?) states mistakenly states:


As I said, energy is a tool that can be used or abused. I take issue with the use of the term "any".

If I am hunting elk and have two 180g .308� loads, I would much rather use the load that retains energy of 3000fpe at expected impact ranges than the load that only carries 500fpe at the same range. Both might (and should) kill with proper placement but the former will likely expand more reliably and do much greater damage.

Your argument would be that one could not look at the differences in retained energy and come to a useful conclusion as to which would be the better elk cartridge. That is like saying you can�t determine which would be better for thirsty crops, a light sprinkle or a good soaking rain, because they both provide moisture. Lots of farmers would disagree.

Well Coyote Hunter I am going with what Duncan McPhearson states in his book since he graduated from MIT with honors and has the only Ballistics model that has been proven to accurately predict the wound channel size and penetration and the model was proven to work 100% of the time bu Dr. Martin Fackler President of The International Wound Ballistics Assoc. and former Head Of The Army Wound Ballistics Lab and they both discount energy transfer.

The fact is in a collision(which is what a bullet impact is) ENERGY DOES NOT TRANSFER, and that is a fact whether or not you wish to accept it or not


If Energy transfered then Newtons Laws of Motion would be invalid, which they are not

That is correct you can not properly rank terminal performance by useing FPE. My 338 Lapua with the 300 grain SMK at 2791 FPS makes 5188 FPE at the muzzle a 458 win with a 500 grain bullet at 2100 FPS makes 4896 FPE to sugest that the 338 is a better Elephant round is ridicules. The 458 500 grain bullet has more momentuma nd more direct applied force and can transfer more momentum

A 22-250 with a 55 grain bullet at 3600 FPS has 1582 FPE, a 360 grain WLFN flat point hard cast in a 454 Casull at 1400 FPS has 1567 FPE. That is less than the 22-250, is that your choice to stop a mad Grizzly Bear? Certainly is not my choice, yet the 22-250 has more energy. Energy can not be measure it can only be calculated.
In a collision energy is calculated in Joules, which is a heat measurement. Why is that? It is because FPE transforms into thermal energy (heat)

1 Joule is equal to 0.737562149 FPE

I knew I was going to regret reading this thread.....

As a mechanical engineer myself, I would like to understand how the above statement is true. Unless we are getting picky on terminology. I would also like to understand how Energy has nothing to do with the discussion.

Physics is physics right?

Impact / Momentum = mv1 + mv2 = m'v'1 + m'v'2
Energy = 0.5*mv^2 + Q + W + mgh

Seeing that there is as we have called it "Soft Tissue" in this equation, there is an inelastic sinario.
So before impact you have m and v of the bullet which gives you both momentum and energy. You can't have momentum without energy. So both are definite factors and can't be ignored.

After impact, your bullet velocity may essentially go to zero while your bullet mass may be still constant....so at that point your bullet no longer has momentum or energy due to the velocity being zero. Where the heck did they go if they were not transfered or converted? Looking at our laws of physics, you must do a mass energy balance. So if the bullet no longer has that momentum or energy and it is not transfered or converted, our laws of physics are crap.

In theory it could have all instantaneously converted to heat (Q), but that would most likely mean that your hole would be cauterized. I tend to think that letter "W" (work) comes into play since the potential energy (mgh) is not really factor here.

Shoot...I have to run to a meeting. Again, I would just like to understand where the energy and momentum went when the bullet decelarated from X fps to zero.

ME here also and I've already tried to reason with them.

What no shock wave?

The "shock wave" happens when energy transfer is too rapid or high rate to be absorbed by the target or target area. Heat something and it absorbs, now heat it till it glows, presto light "wave"...similar idea.

I will concede that shock may make little or no difference in big game killing.

I don't care....shock wave, no shock wave. Shock and/or wave may or may not be the right wording. Whatever.

But physics is physics sir Isaac.
The energy and momentum, which in this case are the start by a bullet of mass "m" flying at a velocity "v", are the inputs to the calculation/formula. They don't just magically disappear and cannot be ignored or be considered a non-factor. Energy cannot disappear......its physics. If you consider momentum a factor, you cannot consider energy a non-factor.

If someone says that they had a bullet pass through and exit at the same speed as it entered and therefore retains all of its energy....I guess I can't argue with the calculation behind it, but would like to see it since in theory even the air it is passing through is slowing it down.

If someone says that all of the energy converted entirely and immediately to heat.....I guess I can't argue with the calculation behind that either, but I have yet to see a deer or elk have cauterized holes.

So once again, where does it go? If we exclude the upper two sinarios since they are not reasonable, where does that 1000ftlbs or 2000ftlbs of energy go remember that you cannot have momentum without energy?

If someone says that it is a combination of heat and work, I will start to bite. We all know what heat is. Work is what? Moving something a distance is work right?
If that work is displacing the tissue in the way of the bullet path, I'll stay interested. If that displaced tissue once again has to transfer/convert energy due to its mass at a new velocity being decelerated, this energy will again transfer/convert heat and work to the neighboring tissue. This will continue to happen until there is essentially no more work being created and all of the heat is dissipated.
I don't care what its called...shock wave, hydrowhatever.

My question is, where does this energy go since it cannot and will never dissappear?

In a collision energy transforme into other forms of energy mostly thermal. Being an Engineer I am sure that you are familar with Newtons Laws of Motion. Momentum transfers in a collision, not energy.

McPhearson devotes and entire chapter to understanding this. Buy the book

Don�t you love it when people argue that momentum is conserved but pretend energy doesn�t matter, even though it is also a conserved entity and inseparable from momentum in that you either have both or you have neither?

Don�t you love it when they claim no energy is transferred to the target but have no answer for where it goes when the bullet�s velocity, and therefore its momentum and energy, drops to zero? Maybe they think it just disappears? (So much for conservation...!)

The fact is that it takes WORK to tear flesh asunder, shatter bones and do the other things a bullet does. Maybe they think when a prairie dog is sent flying is different directions the energy required to accelerate the body parts comes from a lightning bolt?

While I freely admit that energy alone is a poor predictor of terminal performance, it is a tool with its place, to be used or abused as the user sees fit. The more similar the calibers and bullets the more useful it becomes, and vice versa. As I�ve said many times, though, retained energy is only one aspect. More important is the rate at which energy is transferred and for what period of time, something retained energy figures alone cannot inform about. Then there is bullet weight, bullet construction, etc., all factors that play a part in terminal performance.

The truth remains, however, a bullet with zero energy does no harm while a bullet with infinite energy destroys the target, the earth and the universe.

I will butt heads with JWP no more; y'all have my sympathy.

THIS Luddite thought one definition of energy was " the ability to do work". In this case, the work is to crush, tear, bruise, and liquefy various tissues. No? Otherwise, the only difference between the wound from a .30 Carbine and a .30 RUM would be the length.

Second point... Ask a prairie dog about the non-existance of "shock waves" after he's been popped over a 100 sq/yd area... Methinks there's a wee little prarie dog in the vitals of every big animal just waiting to be popped... Just sayin'...

Again Jeff O misunderstands that the Prarrie Dog is ripped appart by the hydraulic pressure that is too great for it's mass. Shoot a Prarrie Dog with a 22-250 bullet at 3600 FPS and watch the explosion. Shoot one with a 360 grain bullet at 1400 FPS (roughly the same FPE) and NO Explosion

Kinetic energy is transformed into thermal energy in a collision. Agains Newtons Laws of Motion deal with 1- Forces, 2-Momentum transfers, 3-Acceleration, not energy relationships.

1 Foot Pound of energy is equal to 1.355817948 Joules. Joules is a heat measurement

http://www.unitconversion.org/energy/joules-to-foot-pounds-conversion.html

Conservation of Momentum


http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/Class/momentum/u4l2b.html

Once again, retained energy is only part of the equation. What happens with the .22-250 is there is a very high transference of bullet energy to the prairie dog while the larger, slower bullet passes through will a lower rate of transference.



Kinetic Energy (KE) is defined as a function of mass (m) and velocity (v) thusly:
KE=1/2 m * v * v

The standard metric unit of measurement for kinetic energy is the Joule, which is defined in terms of mass (kg), meters (m) and seconds (s) thusly:
1 Joule = 1 kg * ((m * m)/(s * s))

In practical terms, a Joule is the work done by a force of one Newton through a distance of one meter.


But your argument is self-defeating � you cannot have momentum without energy and vice versa.

I think it's important to define the energy of a bullet as primarily kinetic energy, which is the ability to do work due to the bullet's motion.

jwp,

You definitely have a lot of this ironed out, but one thing you said needs correction.

If we have a car doing 60 mph, and a pedestrian who is standing motionless, we can say that the car has quite a bit of kinetic energy, while the pedestrian has none. In a collision, momentum is conserved in that none is dissipated, wasted, or lost. But there is often a kinetic energy transfer, and in this case, there definitely would be. After the collision, the car is slowed down a little (decreasing its kinetic energy), and the person is going a lot faster than he was before (from motionless or flying through the air), and therefore his kinetic energy is increased. So, in this case, there was a kinetic energy transfer from the car to the pedestrian.

It is true that some of the kinetic energy of a bullet is converted into thermal energy, but there most of it is converted into mechanical energy in the deformation of the bullet and the change in position, or "relocation" of animal parts.

Some quotes from a physics professor out of his text book:

"When a force acts upon an object to cause a displacement of the object, it is said that work was done upon the object."

"When the work is done upon the object, that object gains energy. The energy acquired by the objects upon which work is done is known as mechanical energy."
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/energy/u5l1d.html

A Joule is simply the unit of energy, which can describe a quantity of any type of energy, be it thermal, kinetic, electrical, mechanical, potential, gravitational potential, elastic, etc.

That's how I always saw it, the energy provided the ability to do work and that work was the damage inflicted....but I'm defianately no expert so maybe Im wrong.

Also, with regards to the "shock wave" vs. hydraulic pressure issue, here are a couple of quotes:

"When the speed of a source exceeds the speed of sound (v > c) the wave fronts lag behind the source in a cone-shaped region with the source at the vertex. The edge of the cone forms a supersonic wave front with an unusually large amplitude called a "shock wave". When a shock wave reaches an observer a "sonic boom" is heard."
http://hypertextbook.com/physics/waves/shock/

"In physics, oscillation that is propagated from a source. Mechanical waves require a medium through which to travel. Electromagnetic waves do not; they can travel through a vacuum. Waves carry energy but they do not transfer matter. The medium (for example the Earth, for seismic waves) is not permanently displaced by the passage of a wave."
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Wave+(physics)

There is no "shock wave" when a bullet hits game, but there is a wave transmitted through the flesh of an animal (or test media, or whatever it hits). This wave is what produces the temporary cavity. By definition, a wave does NOT carry matter, only energy. When energy passes through matter, the matter temporarily displaces, and then returns to its initial position.

The permanent cavity is produced by the mechanical energy of the bullet as applied directly to the flesh and blood, as well as the secondary damage done by the bone fragments, tissue fragments, blood, etc. that contacts other, undamaged tissue. This secondary damage is what jwp refers to as "hydraulic pressure," which is a more accurate term to describe the permanent damage done to an animal than is the term "shock wave."

There can not be a transfer of energy if Newton Laws of Motion are correct and I am betting that they are. When a Que ball hits the 9 ball and the 9 ball races across the table you are witnessing a transfer of momentum, NOT A TRANSFER OF ENERGY/
The faster round produces more hydraulic pressure than the slower round despite nearly the same amount of KE. Hydraulic pressure in the small amount of mass that a Prairie dog has stretches past it's limits of elasticity and rips apart.

Jordan, when calculating energy in a collision it is calculated as Joules and the Joules (which is thermal energy is indeed transfer) but it is momentum and hydraulic pressure that creates the wound channel.

Duncan McPhearson dedicates a whole chapter on why any attempt to quantify Wound Trauma Incapacitation is flawed and wrong. The chapter on Understanding Energy Relationships is an eye opener. Since Duncan has a "Ballistics Model" that is proven to be 100% accurate in predicting penetration and wound channel size, he must know what he is talking about.

Lesson 2: The Law of Momentum Conservation
The Law of Action-Reaction (Revisited)
A collision is an interaction between two objects which have made contact (usually) with each other. As in any interaction, a collision results in a force being applied to the two colliding objects. Such collisions are governed by Newton's laws of motion. In the second unit of The Physics Classroom, Newton's third law of motion was introduced and discussed. It was said that...

... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

Newton's third law of motion is naturally applied to collisions between two objects. In a collision between two objects, both objects experience forces which are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Such forces often cause one object to speed up (gain momentum) and the other object to slow down (lose momentum). According to Newton's third law, the forces on the two objects are equal in magnitude. While the forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, the acceleration of the objects are not necessarily equal in magnitude. In accord with Newton's second law of motion, the acceleration of an object is dependent upon both force and mass. Thus, if the colliding objects have unequal mass, they will have unequal accelerations as a result of the contact force which results during the collision.

Consider the collision between the club head and the golf ball in the sport of golf. When the club head of a moving golf club collides with a golf ball at rest upon a tee, the force experienced by the club head is equal to the force experienced by the golf ball. Most observers of this collision have difficulty with this concept because they perceive the high speed given to the ball as the result of the collision. They are not observing unequal forces upon the ball and club head, but rather unequal accelerations. Both club head and ball experience equal forces, yet the ball experiences a greater acceleration due to its smaller mass. In a collision, there is a force on both objects which causes an acceleration of both objects. The forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, yet the least massive object receives the greatest acceleration.

Consider the collision between a moving seven-ball and an eight-ball that is at rest in the sport of table pool. When the seven-ball collides with the eight-ball, each ball experiences an equal force directed in opposite directions. The rightward moving seven-ball experiences a leftward force which causes it to slow down; the eight-ball experiences a rightward force which causes it to speed up. Since the two balls have equal masses, they will also experience equal accelerations. In a collision, there is a force on both objects which causes an acceleration of both objects; the forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. For collisions between equal-mass objects, each object experiences the same acceleration.

Consider the interaction between a male and female figure skater in pair figure skating. A woman (m = 45 kg) is kneeling on the shoulders of a man (m = 70 kg); the pair is moving along the ice at 1.5 m/s. The man gracefully tosses the woman forward through the air and onto the ice. The woman receives the forward force and the man receives a backward force. The force on the man is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the force on the woman. Yet the acceleration of the woman is greater than the acceleration of the man due to the smaller mass of the woman.

Many observers of this interaction have difficulty believing that the man experienced a backward force. "After all," they might argue, "the man did not move backward." Such observers are presuming that forces cause motion. In their minds, a backward force on the male skater would cause a backward motion. This is a common misconception that has been addressed elsewhere in The Physics Classroom. Forces cause acceleration, not motion. The male figure skater experiences a backwards force which causes his backwards acceleration. The male skater slows down while the woman skater speeds up. In every interaction (with no exception), there are forces acting upon the two interacting objects which are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

Collisions are governed by Newton's laws. The law of action-reaction (Newton's third law) explains the nature of the forces between the two interacting objects. According to the law, the force exerted by object 1 upon object 2 is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the force exerted by object 2 upon object 1.


http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/Class/momentum/u4l2a.html


Notice that in a collision it is "Forces" and "Momentum" that govern no where is "emergy relationships mentioned

Notice that Energy IS NOT CONSERVED in enelastic Collisions, which is what a bullet hitting a Deer is

Well you got the half about hitting a deer right, in that it is an inelastic collision.

BUT YOU ARE WRONG in stating that energy is not conserved in an inelastic collision. In fact, both momentum and energy are conserved - what is not conserved is KINETIC energy. Instead, some kinetic energy is turned into other forms of energy, such as heat.

What leads you to believe that? For a good portion of my university education I was a physics major, and I can't see any reason why a transfer of energy would violate any of the 3 laws of motion.

When the balls collide, there is a transfer of momentum AND energy, the two are very finely intertwined.

I agree 100%. Keep in mind that at no time did I say that more energy equals greater killing power. I was simply evaluating and describing what happens when a bullet hits an animal in terms of physics. I'm not saying that energy kills, although a bullet certainly needs energy to kill an animal. Also remember that momentum is the mass multiplied by the velocity of an object, and kinetic energy is one half of the mass times the square of the velocity of the object. It is easy to see that both figures are VERY proportional to each other.

If you have momentum, you also have kinetic energy.

I disagree. I would say that a bullet hitting a deer is an imperfect elastic collision, since the motion is transferred to the particles of the deer. The lung tissue, bone fragments, etc are put into motion by the bullet. It is true that kinetic energy isn't perfectly conserved, and therefore it isn't a perfectly elastic collision, but that doesn't mean that there is not a transfer of energy.

To illustrate a perfectly elastic collision, we can take two billiard balls with no friction colliding. The total kinetic energy in the system is the same after the collision as before.

To illustrate a perfectly inelastic collision, we can take a man running straight into a brick wall. All kinetic energy was lost in the collision.

Now that's splitting hairs

You're right though, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted into different forms.


I think the real discrepancy here in this debate lies in the fact that CONSERVATION isn't the same as a TRANSFER. I think we'll all basically agree about what causes the deer to die, but we need to understand that momentum is conserved and transferred, while kinetic energy is NOT conserved, but is TRANSFERRED, therefore energy figures are a poor measuring stick for killing power.

I can agree with that, Jordan except for the part about energy being transferred, it is transformed into other forms of energy, mostly thermal. That is why in an enelastic collison energy is figured as heat (Joules or BTU's)

I've always contended energy is not a perfect yardstick, not even close. Other factors being equal, what is more important is the amount of energy transferred and the time in which it is transferred. 3000fpe over a couple of milliseconds is going to hurt. Spread that energy out over a year and it doesn't do much at all.

One thing is very true, however - a bullet cannot transfer more energy than it starts with.

Go here and it clearly shows that Kinetic Energy is lost in enelastic collisions.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/inecol.html#c1


I may be wrong and if so Physics is also wrong

A 250 pound NFL running back that runs a 10 second 100 yard dash has 3497 FPE< if energy was the primary wounding factor then the Morgue would be full of NFL players after each game

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. What I said was that in an inelastic collision "what is not conserved is KINETIC energy". In other words, kinetic energy is lost in inelastic collisions. That agrees with the link you provided.

To state that kinetic energy is lost, however, is not the same thing as saying energy is lost. In fact, energy and momentum are both conserved in both elastic and inelastic collisions. What is lost in inelastic collisions is KINETIC energy, as some of it is transformed to other types of energy, such as heat.

You stated "Energy IS NOT CONSERVED in enelastic Collisions" which is not correct. In other words, your statement was wrong.

Had you stated "Kinetic energy IS NOT CONSERVED in enelastic Collisions", you would have been correct (except for the misspelling of 'inelastic').

Oh the spelling police are out tonight I see.

Any how that still makes Energy an inaccurate way of rating Wound Trauma Incapacitation

.........Assuming you put a good hit into the vitals? Absolutely!!

A 180 gr from an `06 (in round #`s) has a MV of 2700 fps. Don`t have the BC #`s of the factory bullets. But as an example, if you were using a 180 gr. Nosler A/B, with a BC of .507 at a MV of 2700 fps, your down range energy at 400 yards is 1660 ft lbs at a velocity of 2038 fps.

As I`ve seen on TV`s "Best of the West" hunting show, if a Berger VLD hunting bullet from a 7mm mag can down elk at very long ranges out to 925 yards, with less down range energy at impact than what an `06 has at 400 yards, you`ll be fine.

The bullet difference however, is that the VLD`s (hunting bullet) give the animal an instant or much faster (DRT) shrapnel effect, causing enormous vitals damage with less down range energy. They are not a pass through bullet whether at higher impact speeds or at lower impact speeds.

Even though the VLD`s will do the same damage at hi impact speeds at the shorter ranges, as a suggestion and if you`re a reloader, on any future elk hunt even where you feel your shooting ranges maybe at 400 yards or better, for added longer range stopping assurance, consider the VLD hunting bullet.

On my next elk hunt, I`m loading up some 190 gr. VLD`s for my 300 WSM.

The reviews I`ve read from elk hunters as to its devastating stopping effects are excellent. Highly likely, you won`t need to track the animal.

The Berger Bullet site has a new audio/video showing that 925 yard shot on a bull elk and also shows computer graphics that illustrate what the VLD`s do from the instant of impact on big game.

Very informative.

I will take that as your concession that energy is conserved in an inelastic collision - so we agree on that point.


My original contention was this:


It seems to me we agree energy alone is an imperfect tool, but my contention is that it is better than nothing and can be used to good advantage if used wisely rather than stupidly.

I also took issue with the use of the term "any" in the statement in the book:


The falsity of this statement is easily seen by simply taking two identical bullets and launching them at a target at grossly different speeds. The example I like to use is the velocities which impart 0 fpe (0fps) and the velocity which imparts infinite fpe (infinite fps). On impact, the 0fpe bullet will do nothing, the other will destroy the universe as we know it. In both cases the effect of bullet impact is determined using "energy relationships" and both are quite accurate.

In the more practical world, consider 180g Partition bullets at .30-30 and .300 win Mag speeds as an example. If we assume velocities of 2200fps and 3100fps respectively, one could reasonably come to the conclusion the faster bullet would perform the same at 495 yards (2200fps, 1934fpe) as the slower bullet would at the muzzle (also 2200fps, 1934fpe). In fact, if we know how either bullet performs at any range, we can reasonably expect the other to perform the same at the range at which it has equal energy (and by derivation, the same velocity and same momentum).

Or we can abuse the energy tool and try to predict results using grossly different bullets at grossly different velocities. If the statement in the book had read "Attempts to derive the effect of bullet impact in tissue using energy relationships are often ill advised and wrong...". I would have been in full agreement. But the meaning of that statement is much different than what was written.

No doubt that VLD does a great job on camera when the wapiti stands in the open for a broadside hit to the chest....and since it's an "intelligent bullet" that seems to know when it has gotten into the chest to blow up on broadside shots,I'm not sure it understands what it is "supposed" to do on a long angling shot...

This will not matter to those amateur bullet "testers", mesmerized by computer graphics,and awash in ballistic minutia.

I find all the furor over using target bullets that fly apart on big game to be rather interesting,as this type of bullet performance was what drove people like John Nosler and Jack Carter,Bill Steigers,and Lee Reid to give us stuff like Partitions, Bear Claws,Aframes, etc.Interesting to discover that Berger bullets had the BIG SECRET all these years....

Any one with any experience killing elk instead of just watching it done knows that exploding bullets in the chest cavity are no sure bet for DRT's; and the elk will be killed no quicker with the Berger than with the Partition.No doubt hitting the wapiti at 900 yards will be easier with the Berger,if you are into that sort of "thing"...which is great Saturday afternoon TV entertainment,like Looney Tunes,but hardly typical of most elk hunting.

No doubt the fabulous accuracy,and high BC, of the Bergers are a big assist to hitting at long range;and the tin-foil jackets help them "'splode" in the chest (assuming you hit them there).But I would not want them in my rifle for general purpose elk hunting,or for a long-angling shot in the timber.

I doubt Berger ever deliberately "developed" a "hunting" bullet; the comtemporary fascination with 1000 yard kills drove a bunch of people to try them;and the slick nonsense they show in their computer generated depictions is Madison Ave marketing at its' best.

Jeepers guys...

Energy is a valuable metric as long as there's some common sense involved; for example within the context of hunting bullets of a given weight. Knowing the energy of, say, a 180-gn .30 cal Partition means you know a lot about it's potential to wound.... As long as you "know sumptin'"... Grin... Guys like JWP will spin it every which way, comparing a .17 caliber bullet at ungodly speeds to a normal bullet at normal speeds in an attempt to discredit energy as a useful metric... But with even a little common sense, energy figures are one more tool, and just a tool, for getting one's brain around what a cartridge/bullet/load might do...

JWP told me that my Accubond exploded in an elk chest, and that the wound extending to the far side hide, that I could comfortably stick my thumb into, was not from a bullet per se, but rather a tiny fragment that then vaporized, amazingly enough, leaving no trace- other than a thumb-thick channel through the neck muscle. Wow. That's some physics, there. Uh... Particle physics, I guess.

Anyway, my position is that energy figures are an interesting number to gack about, within the common-sense context of the zietgiest of known bullet performance. Do they tell the whole story? Of course not. Can zealots like JWP beat a dead horse into the ground using "energy" as his club? Guess so.

That's not complicated, really, but some like to make it so. BSEG.

BOBIN......I take it then, that you haven`t tried the VLD hunting bullets on elk? It would appear so! I`ve never used them either on the 9 elk I`ve killed. But, I`m always willing to try different things now and again and keep an open mind with far less skepticism as yourself.

The last time I checked animal (elk) anatomy, the vitals are located in the center of the animal, not on the other side of the animal. A bullet need not pass through to kill an elk. With elk, I have never needed to take a quartering or angled shot at a less than desirable angle. Lucky I guess.

True! I wasn`t there to see the shots and verify those distances for myself in person, but I will not necessarily discount what I saw several times on TV either. I certainly cannot disprove it.

And I will not discount the reviews and reports from others who have used the VLD hunting bullets on elk.

Of course, no bullet is a 100% guarantee of having an immediate DRT affect. If I remember correctly, the Berger hunting bullets are constructed a little differently than their non hunting match bullet counterparts?

Do you happen to know of a report or a reference where someone used the hunting VLD on elk and was not satisfied? If so, I would appreciate that reference. Rather than relying upon the opinions or speculations of those who haven`t used them, if there is enough valid and proveable evidence for me not to use them on my elk hunt late this year, then I won`t use them.

Would appreciate any reference you can find!

How in the hell did you dream that up? Hearing voices at night?

Are you saying that energy is not energy? That energy is different at different speeds?

You certainly deserve the "Paper Hat" No wonder you won that award on "As Real As It Gets"

I see that you've met Jeff O...

No I did not conciede that.

"Inelastic collisions may not conserve kinetic energy, but they do obey conservation of momentum".

This chart Clearly shows that Kinetic Energy is Lost in inelastic Collisions





Energy is still energy at what ever the velocity and that is the point that you are missing apparently and that point makes energy a very useless indicator of predicting lethality. If enrgy was the determining factor then it would not fail so misserable at different velocities. You are making a good point aginst energy.





So what are you're credentials to discredit Duncan McPhearsons work? His Model is highly reguarded by Dr. Martin Fackler. Duncan Has a very impressive resume and I believe that he is qualified to know what he is talking about.

http://mechanical-physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/understanding_physics_collision_problems

I agree but we don't shoot Elk with varmint rounds.

Energy can be.. is.. transfered at different rates. Rate of transfer is called Power. "High" Power "leads" to "Shock". A big slow bullet of equal kinetic energy to the light/fast does not develop the same Power level in like targets.

Same energy transfer is not the same as same Power. When a low mass, fast bullet of light construction hits a frangible target of low mass.... a high Power event is witnessed.

What we should be saying is that you don't need high Power events to kill. The high power event is dependent of all the variables, bullet speed, bullet mass, bullet construction, target mass and construction.

Another thing that clouds the water is that you get to the point that "enough is enough" with big game. And... maybe there's a "4 to 1" rule after a certain point. Maybe it takes 4 times more energy to kill 1 Power factor better. None of this makes energy models completely irrevalent.

Of course Energy kills. Like one guy said.... try killing something with 0 energy.

By the way, using a bullet model....that football player also has momentum equivalent to kill... just saying.

Memory failing you JWP?

It starts with the quote below, and goes from there. Click the link I included for the sordid thing. If anyone is really bored and wants to see why I've completely given up on you, JWP, this thread was the beginning of the end. I TRIED to be reasonable with you- but you just have to turn everything personal. Life's too short. Later.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/2564828/page/0/fpart/3

That quote of mine is a far cry from what you are alleging that I said. Again you prove that you don't have a qlue.

I thought that you had me on ignore at least that is what you said. A man of your word you ain't.

My credentials are those of a person with a college degree in electronics and more math, physics and chemistry classes than I can recall.

McPherson may be an MIT graduate, I don't know. Regardless, his use of the word "Any" in the statement I quoted makes it a statement of absolutes when it is correct only in a general sense.

If McPherson's statement was true in the absolute, as stated, it would be impossible for a person, using energy figures alone, to come to any useful conclusion when trying to decide whether to use a .45ACP or a .458 Lott for hunting cape buffalo. No one I know would have any problem at all choosing the .458 Lott in that situation.

You are correct in that useing energy figure to determine which one to use is the wrong way to go, but the amount of direct applied force and the amount of momentum is heavily in favor of the Lott.


And yes McPhearson graduated form MIT wth Honors

I have no problem with the fact that in inelastic collisions some Kinetic energy may not be conserved. In such collisions some energy may be transformed into other forms of energy, such as heat, electromagnetic, etc. The point you are missing is that TOTAL energy (kinetic plus all other forms) is conserved. The chart you like to cite is correct, but what it does not say is how much kinetic energy is lost due to such transformations. Nor does it particularly matter - TOTAL energy remains the same.

In the case where a bullet is stopped inside an animal, the kinetic energy loss is 100%. Some energy goes to deform the bullet, some goes to deform the target. One way or another, most eventually becomes heat. Frankly, I don't care if the bullet passes through, with less than 100% loss of kinetic energy, or stops with 100% loss - what I am concerned with is the amount of energy that is transferred to the target animal. One thing that is always true - a bullet cannot transfer more energy to the target than it starts with. That little factoid is the reason energy comparisons can be useful in predicting bullet performance, even if the practice is inexact and fraught with potential for error.

http://mechanical-physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/understanding_physics_collision_problems

Not if the bullet causes bone fragments, tissues, etc. to gain kinetic energy (be put into motion) by the collision.

Force is not the greatest yard stick either, because it equals mass times acceleration (or deceleration), and if a bullet that is twice as big slows down at half the rate of a smaller bullet weighing half as much as the bigger bullet, they've both applied the same amount of force.


gmack is on the right track, physically speaking, in terms of the best way to describe the killing potential of a bullet.

Again, energy doesn't kill, but it enables things (bullets) to kill. The NFL player certainly could kill somebody if he hit them right (also, elk don't wear football pads *grin*). Energy enables the bullet to kill, just as it enables the NFL player to tackle someone (and even kill if hit properly).

The wound channel is created by the type of bullet and the construction of said bullet, the amount of direct applied force, the amount of momentum transferred and the amount of hydraulic pressure that is created by the bullets velocity. Kinetic energy is NOT CONSERVED IN INELASTIC COLLISIONs.



Putting the bone fragments into motion is a transfer of momentum and is called secondary wounding and only happens at 2000 FPS and higher impact velocities

BS: You are correct...I have not used the Berger VLD on elk,am unlikely to do so,and am not interested in using bullets that base their reputation for lethal effectiveness on their tendency to penetrate fractionally and then "blow up".

I guess I am just less intrepid than some others,and am not going to "try" anything on a big game hunt that I do not feel performs in a manner I find satisfactory. I am not a "bullet tester"(try to avoid if possible),not a gunwriter and don't wish to be,and value consistent,reliable bullet performance on big game.For this reason, I cock a skeptical eyebrow toward promises of instant DRT's from cavity hits and fragmenting bullets...

I HAVE had elk collapse instantly from Noslers and Bitterroots,and particularly from the Bitterroots,damage was very extensive, so the notion that bullet fragmentation is somehow the panacea for instant kills is lost on me.

I was "raised" in an environment of bullet makers constantly trying to maintain a high level of bullet integrity;not that high weight retention is always essential to lethal effect,but I have seen enough game shot with enough bullets to know that the Berger basis for bullet effectiveness(Penetrate a short distance and fragment)does not result,consistently,in DRT's,on elk or anything else larger than woodchucks.In other words, I do not believe it,notwithstanding the very convincing computer-enhanced graphics.

I have also done enough elk hunting to understand that elk do not always present perfect broadside opportunities,especially in heavy cover,and that sometimes what "appears" to be a broadside opportunity(requiring only shallow penetration)is not, in fact,"broadside".I have experienced this before,and the day was only saved by a bullet providing substantiallly more penetration than what a Berger seems to provide.

Especially in heavy cover,an elk looking back over its' shoulder at you can appear to be "broadside",when in fact it is angling steeply away;a Berger driven into the short ribs(you, thinking you hit broadside) may not make it into the chest cavity,whereas a tougher bullet that pentrates deeper has a better chance of reaching vitals.No doubt the Berger will maybe work better at extremely long range,or under circumstances where shots can be very precisely placed. But I am not a "long range" shooter myself,having only taken a pair of big herd bulls just shy of 500 yards,so such issues are sort of wasted on me.

In the random "rough and tumble" of real (not theoretical)big game hunting,there are a million possible scenarios where some additional penetration and bullet integrity can save your bacon; I would rather go this route than bank success or failure on a theory of bullet performance that has not proved very reliable over the years,and only theoretically results in quicker kills measured in fractions of seconds.Anybody who predicates bullet choice on the pursuit and promises of 100% DRT's is jousting with windmills,and will wind up dissapointed. He will not find it.

This myth seems to run rampant on here that you have to "try" things before you can accept or reject,or voice an opinion on them ,but if I take a manufacturers representations as to how his bullets perform at face value, I do not think it a heinous sin that I stay away from them. I do not believe in "trying" bullets on big game animals.I will stick with what I know works.

Gunwriters are in a differrent position and part of their livlihood involves working with new products and reporting on them.I am not professionally bound in this regard,so will leave the experimentation up to them.

So you will not see me running around looking for testimonial evidence regarding Berger bullets,because I already know what works on elk,and have better things to do with my time.By deliberate decision, I will never try them,and will stifle a yawn when someone grasps at my lapels, breathlessly proclaiming their effectiveness; I have better things to do with my spare time than trying to prove what an open-minded guy I am..

Unless the bullet fragments or tissues exit the body of the animal, they eventually come to a stop at which point the loss of kinetic energy is complete at 100%.

In the case of bullet/bone/tissue exit the loss of kinetic energy is still 100% but some is lost outside the animal.

Momentum and energy are inseparable - you cannot have one without the other. If you prefer to think in tems of momentum that is fine but that does not negate the fact that in transferring momentum you are also transferring energy.

Once I complete my 6.5mm-06 I plan to use Berger VLD's, but only for targets. Like you, I have no interest in using a bullet on big game that is advertised as a bullet that often fragments shortly after impact. Yes, such performance can result in very quick and dramatic kills. It can also result in horrendous wounds that allow an animal to escape and be lost.

In 2006 I had an easy 80-yard quartering away shot at a buck mule deer. Just as the trigger broke the buck stepped forward and turned, the result being a hit low in the right ham. The 140g North Fork mushroomed perfectly, dropped the buck in its tracks, and was recovered from up against the sternum. Of the four elk I've shot with North Forks, three dropped straight down and the other made it only 25 yards or so before dropping. That is the kind of penetration and performance I want.

I don't use standard cup and core bullets on big game any more, and haven't since taking my first elk back in the early 80's. One less than satisfactory experience was enough.

Not exactly. The bone fragments and tissue lose their kinetic energy because of friction and other, secondary collisions with other tissue, bone, and hide. BUT, the initial collision is not perfectly inelastic because the initial bone fragments and tissue did gain kinetic energy transferred from the bullet, and if there wasn't any other tissue or hide behind the initial impact point, they would retain their kinetic energy and continue onward until they hit the ground.

If what you are saying is true, then there would be no such thing as an elastic collision because, in our atmosphere, everything that is put into motion will stop eventually. The billiard balls example is an example of an elastic collision, but AFTER the initial collision each ball has a secondary collision with the pocket, and comes to a stop. This secondary collision doesn't make the initial collision inelastic just because the balls eventually fall into the pocket.

Everything you said is 100% correct, but you need to realize that the applied force, momentum transfer and hydraulic pressure are all created because of the bullet's energy.

Again, remember that when we say that kinetic energy is not perfectly conserved, it DOES NOT mean that NONE is conserved or transferred, just that not all of it is conserved.

About the 2000fps limit, I don't know if I buy that. I've seen chunks of gopher go flying out the offside due to the impact of a .22RF bullet going much slower than 2000. Also, a shotgun slug surely will displace bone fragments in an impact. It depends on the resistance of the bone in question, as well as how brittle it is, and also on the momentum of the bullet that hits it.

I was like you, where I'd shoot TSX's at everything bigger than a coyote, but with the recent 30% price hike on all reloading components here lately, I may go to C&C for deer, and reserve the TSX's for the really big game like elk, moose, bear, etc.

I'm having trouble deciding if all this "energy" is adding to the global warming problem, or if Algor-ithm was wrong, not about global warming, but about what caused it: momentum. (Darn that Newton anyway; we talk like we're doing something by conserving energy. Here he done went and got it all conserved for us long ago. No wonder we just sits and spins our wheels.)

Sorry

I'll now turn you back over to your serious debate - and step back up onto the bleachers.

On a serious note, where does momentum go in an energy transformation? Something must happen to momentum when kinetic energy transfers into heat, among other things, if momentum is conserved. Does momentum "become" energy in a form other than motion?

The only thing I have deduced, so far, from this theoretical discussion is that:

* (kinetic) energy doesn't kill (although it makes lot of heat)

* thermal energy doesn't kill (but it makes a great way to grill what you have killed; the bullet just doesn't transform into enough)

* momentum doesn't kill (although when applied to a willing target by a large enough linebacker, the target might be knocked over)

There's somethings going on when a bullet is fired into a target. We can argue all we want, but I don't see anyone volunteering to be Superman and prove that energy "doesn't kill". Therefore, I am willing to bet that it must have something to with killing. And though I recognized right away - two or three decades ago- that a 223 and a 44 mag were not equally suited to the purposes of bear protection, it was apparent that they are equated if one only looks at the energy portion of the factors. There are several factors at play here. Energy must be one of those factors. But just as with momentum (or bullet construction), one must not look at it exclusive of the others.

Exactly.

Momentum degenerates into force when it strikes something. The more the target resists, the more force that is applied. Those that prefer to think in terms of momentum probably believe penetration does all the killing. Cartridges were once compared by how many pine boards they would penetrate.

Energy is the inseparable other value, just a dumb number..... until the rate of transfer is considered. Remember the 22 Hi-Power. It's maker was telling you that this round would dispense it's energy rather quickly. Does that make it a big game round?...... not necessarily!

Energy is the potential to do work, nothing more. Those impressed with energy fiqures need to pay particular attention to how their bullet choice will react to different target densities. The Berger bullet seems to be a good example of how to get correctly applied power out of a big game bullet. They say it works. The "bomb" is a high power energy exchange.. in the right spot.

Momentum is the more dependable model because it's so rudimentary. You want a hole in something... use a solid. You want wider hole.... use an expander or larger caliber and push it a little faster to keep up with the extra force needed. You want an even wider wound channel all the way thru..... use a tougher expander and push even faster.... fast enough to transfer momentum to the tissue.

Energy on the other hand is much more nebulous (to borrow a word from JB) you need to have a plan to make use of that also. The problem run into is that more energy does not always mean more work will be done or that sufficient power levels will be reached. That's what is giving energy it's bad name around the Campfire.

If you shoot a "magnum" for the power (there are other reasons)you need to extract the energy wisely. If you don't you'll get energy wasted beyond the target, energy that never reaches a vital area.... power levels the bullet can't handle, power levels too low due to low tissue density. That's when the naysayers opine that your magnum adds nothing to the equation.

When talking about energy and momentum you can't leave out the target type, density and toughness. It is equally as important as bullet construction. Jeff O said that elk have a little PD in them and it's true. The problem for bullet makers and cartridge designers is to get to that PD with the right energy transfer or power. A varmint bullet won't do it because the reactive force it meets is too great for it's construction.

The Berger is the closest I can think of right now that can get to the big game prairie dog with the power of the varmint hit. Haven't connected with one yet but JB did.

Anyway, I just wanted to defend energy a little more. It is a 100% real value. It does represent the greatest amount of work that can be done. The 300 will do more work than a 06, however, the 06 is capable of equal power in any single event. The 06 has enough energy to complete the task. I think that's what makes this such a tough topic.

The Truth is out there. Ask the right questions.

I never fail to be amazed by posts having "energy" in the title going for 12 pages with posts on hunters rights or freedom or some bore never raise anybody unless "fences" is in the title.

Coyote: Agreed;things do not always go as planned.A bullet that retains some weight and/or penetrates deeply enough can save the day under a wider range of circumstances than something designed to fragment shortly after impact.

Accubond.

What was the question again? :-)

Collisions problems are an important class of problems in physics. Momentum is conserved in all collisions. Kinetic energy is only conserved in elastic collisions.

Many physics students have difficulty solving collision homework problems. One key for helping with these problems is understanding the different types of collisions and which quantities are conserved in each type.

Conservation of Momentum
The law of conservation of momentum states that the total momentum of an isolated system with no external forces will be conserved. The momentum can be transferred from one object to another, but the total momentum can neither increase nor decrease.

Deciding whether momentum is conserved in a collision is easy. Momentum is conserved in all collisions. When doing a physics homework problem involving a collision, the total momentum is always the same before and after the collision. Always use the conservation of momentum equation.

Remember that momentum is a vector. In a two or three dimensional collision problem it is absolutely essential to add the momenta of the different objects according to the rules of vector addition. Divide all momenta in the problem into x and y components (and z for a three dimensional problem). Leaving out this step will virtually guarantee a wrong answer.

Conservation of Kinetic Energy
Energy is one of the fundamental quantities that is always conserved. The total amount of energy in an isolated system can neither increase nor decrease. Energy can however change form. That means that the total amount of kinetic energy in a system can change. Kinetic energy can decrease if it is converted to some other form of energy. If another form of energy is converted to kinetic energy, the total kinetic energy of a system can increase.

Working with kinetic energy equations can in some ways be easier than with momentum equations, but it can also in some ways be more difficult. Energy is a scalar rather than a vector quantity, so there is no need to divide energy into components. However velocity is squared in the kinetic energy formula, so solving kinetic energy equations often requires solving a quadratic equation.

In some collisions the initial kinetic energy can change form. For example if the collision produces a noise, kinetic energy transformed into sound energy. If the collision deforms the objects, some of the kinetic energy goes into deformation. Hence Kinetic energy may not be conserved in a collision.
Types of Collisions
Kinetic energy is conserved in some but not all collisions. Whether the kinetic energy is conserved depends on the type of collision. Physicists classify four types of collisions.

Elastic collisions: Kinetic energy is conserved in elastic, which are also called completely elastic, collisions. To solve these problems, use both momentum and kinetic energy conservation.
Inelastic collisions: Kinetic energy is not conserved in inelastic collisions. To solve these problems use momentum conservation but not kinetic energy conservation.
Completely inelastic collisions: In completely inelastic collisions, the objects stick together after the collision. That means they have the same velocity after the collision. To solve these problems, use momentum conservation and use the same velocity after the collision for the objects. Do not use kinetic energy conservation.
Explosive collisions: In explosive collisions kinetic energy increases. The extra kinetic energy usually comes from stored chemical potential energy. To solve these problems. use momentum conservation only.

Conservation of momentum applies to all collision homework problems. Understanding the different types of collisions helps students know when to use conservation of kinetic energy to solve physics collision problems.[b]

http://mechanical-physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/understanding_physics_collision_problems


[b] A bullet collision is an inelastic collision and therfore no energy is transfered

Jordan �

I�m not sure we have a disagreement. I was discussing two separate incidents, one in which nothing exits the target animal and one in which bullet/bone/tissue do exit.

In the former, all bullet fragments and accelerated body parts come to rest inside the body of the animal. At that point, with zero velocity, kinetic energy is also zero for a loss of 100%.

In the second case, where bullet/bone/tissue exits, the loss of kinetic energy inside the animal is less than 100% but all exiting items eventually come to rest outside the animal. (Unless you are hunting in outer space somewhere.) At that point kinetic energy is also zero.



The case of the bullet fragments and all body parts stopping inside the animal is a series of inelastic collisions. In the case where some items exit, it is again a series of inelastic collisions, this time with air, rain, snow, bushes, trees, dirt, etc. Every item involved in secondary collisions eventually comes to rest, at which point kinetic energy is again zero.

The secondary collisions do not affect the elasticity or inelasticity of the primary collision, so I think we are in agreement.






.

You said that before. Your statement is true enough but the point escapes me. Kinetic energy is not conserved in inelastic collisions but total energy IS conserved. Frankly, an inelastic collision is what I want � one in which some energy goes to deform the bullet and some energy goes to deform the target. If no deformation of the target occurs, no vital systems are disrupted and no death occurs.



That is where you go wrong.
Momentum is conserved in inelastic collisions, as you have stated. Total energy is also conserved. (Do the math.) Kinetic energy is not conserved, nor would I want it to be. If it was, no energy would be available for deformation of the target, which would not be a good thing in my book. I am quite happy that some kinetic energy ends up as heat energy with smaller amounts as sound, electromagnetic and possibly other forms of energy.

http://mechanical-physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/understanding_physics_collision_problems





The above diagram clearly shows that kinetic energy is lost. You can choose to ignore this fact if you wish but, it does not change the fact that it is indeed lost in inelastic collision

How many times do I have to state that I AGREE Kinetic energy is not conserved in an inelastic collision before you can comprehend that I understand that fact??? Maybe if I write it THIS way?

I UNDERSTAND THAT KINETIC ENERGY IS NOT CONSERVED IN AN INELASTIC COLLISION.

Kinetic energy is only one form of energy, however. The Kinetic energy that is not conserved is not really lost � it is merely transformed into other forms of energy. TOTAL ENERGY remains the same, as it must � energy is a conserved entity just as is momentum.

I consider the transformation of Kinetic energy a GOOD THING, as some of the Kinetic energy that is transformed goes to deform the target, disrupting vital systems, ending up as heat, sound and other forms of energy.

You guys need to put down the pocket protectors and step away from your key boards.

If you can manage it, go shooting at some range or p'dog town tomorrow. Put some of that heavy theory into practice.

RH

Agree, it is transformed....+1

TRUE

FALSE
jwp, my friend, you need to look up the definition in physics of the word "conserve." If something is not conserved, it does NOT mean that it is entirely lost, it means that not 100% of it still exists after the collision. Even if the bullet collision system still retains 98% of its kinetic energy between the bullet and the animal bone and tissues combined, it HAS NOT conserved kinetic energy.

A collision has conserved kinetic energy if 100% of the energy before the collision still remains after the collision. 100% before, 100% after.

An inelastic collision means that there is 100% before and LESS THAN 100% after.

TRUE

You are correct "no" is to broad of a statement, to transfer energy thou there must be velocity after the collison and of course there is some even in an inlastic collison most of the time

Well, at least we agree on something�



You are still wrong on this count, however. Although kinetic energy is not conserved in an inelastic collision it does not follow that no kinetic energy can be conserved. In many cases, including bullet impacts, a great deal of kinetic energy is conserved (as in prairie dog body parts being sent in different directions), only to be transformed in subsequent collisions.

In fact, if momentum is transferred to the target, energy is also transferred. The two are inseparable - you cannot have one without the other. If you wish to argue that no energy is transferred to a target in an inelastic collision you must also argue, incorrectly, that no momentum is transferred either.

Exactly When animal hide, tissues, or bone fragments start off at rest before the collision, and are in motion after the collision, they have gained kinetic energy.

Here's a good example:
Berger VLD. Goes inside the animal's rib cage, hits the heart, breaks a hole through the ribs, and stops against the hide. We'll take a piece of the heart as an example. The heart tissue was sitting relatively still before the bullet struck. Afterwards, there were pieces of heart that were put into motion by the bullet. They gained kinetic energy (energy that was transferred from the bullet to the pieces of heart). Later on, they experience other collisions (unrelated to the first collision with the bullet) as the heart chunks hit the ribs cage and stop. Their kinetic energy has now been reduced to zero, BUT, they did indeed gain kinetic energy in the first place from the bullet (there was a transfer from the bullet to the pieces of heart).

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.

That is exactly what happened to my mule deer this year. 3 shots from a 264 mag. One in the neck to put him out of his misery. All DRT hits if they had been my old Hornady 140s. Lots of those new bullets going on sale soon from my gun safe. 300 WBY 200 gr Nosler Partitions for Elk this year. You can have my share of those penetrators. I want lead and copper spinning every direction after penetration.

jwp475,

I put the word pressure in bold type. The Momentum model does predict direct applied force. It does explain momentum transferred and most of wound channel. But.... it is not useful to understand hydraulic pressure and is not the whole picture.

Pressure is stored energy. And it makes sense that you included it cause energy and momentum are inseparable! They are just different mathematical models that collectively give a remote view of what's happening.

I was going to type more but Jordan and Coyote already did such an excellent job articulating my points.

Great googley moogley!

I would really love to elk hunt some day. Looking forward to trying it.... but I'll be damned if I'll retake the Ph.D. qualifying exams to do it! I'll just take my 30-06 and not worry about it. :p

Will

Will, but does your 30-06 have enough energy for elk...?

Grin...

Doesn't matter, the elk don't get to vote on the matter. He'll get it whether he approves of it or not. :p

Will

Your 30-06 will work to perfection on Elk IMHO I know mine has

I am really impressed by all of this even though I understood very little of it.......

Just asking here, but is some of this theory sort of lost or "missed" when using bullets that shed cores and jackets? I kind of look(maybe a poor analogy but I think you will get my point) at it like throwing a hand full of sand at a plate glass window; results are predictable;the sand does not break the glass.

BUT...take the same "weight" of sand (in the form of a "rock",or somehow bonded so it presents a homogeneous mass, so that it holds together),and throw it at the glass,and we also know what happens; the glass breaks...

Like wise I think with a bullet that remains homogeneous, expands to some frontal area,but "holds together",and just has retained more mass and weight.In my mind,it has a higher liklihood of penetrating,causing a large,extensive wound,and the ability to "break things";often far from its'point of entry.

This is not hard for me to understand,but then I am not that bright and do not understand fully the "physics" involved here.So that is the best I can explain my view of it...

This thread has more energy than you need to kill an elk.

Bob �
Nope, nothing is lost or �missed� when using bullets that fall apart. You end up with multiple projectiles but they all obey the same laws of physics.

Your analogy is a good one. How far can you throw a sheet of paper? How far can you throw it after you wad it up into a tight ball? Same principle is at work. The denser item penetrates better because the force is applied over a smaller area.

You guys still at it?!

I'll check back in a few days to see how the pocket protector war is raging................

AMEN!

Bob,
Physically speaking, you are comparing two different types of collisions, the sand against the glass is a perfectly inelastic collision (the glass and the sand are both at a stop after the collision), and the bullet in tissue is an imperfect inelastic collision (bullet fragments still cause tissue to displace, but smaller pieces of tissue relative to the tissue hit by a single projectile).

Now, what I think you're getting at, is that the combined effect of the bullet fragments is less than the effect of the single mass bullet, an example of the "whole being greater than the sum of the individual parts." I don't know for sure about that, but it does sound reasonable due to the subsequent collisions caused by larger secondary projectiles from the single bullet as opposed to the fragments. Perhaps McPhearson's book would be a good source to consult on the wound affect of different bullet behaviors.

The Nosler Partition 200 gr out of a 300 WBY at 2900 fps should shed enough fragments to poke holes in lungs arteries and still punch a 2 inch hole on exit. That is what I am expecting.
Full frontal or Texas heart shot DRT.elk. Opinions?

I think you've rhetorically proven that those who live in glass houses, should not shoot Ballistic Tips.

Or maybe you've proved the opposite...

Jordan: My analogy was not a great one,but I think you get the point,as does Coyote.I am not an expert at wound ballistics but I have seen the effects of Bitterroots many times,and these bullets illustrate what I am trying to communicate.

They expand to a large frontal area,create a long and large wound area,and frequently expand to well over 50 caliber,while retaining about as much weight as a TSX. Like a Barnes they break a lot of "things",do a lot of damage,and IME are very quick killers.You do not see any fragmentation,yet there is frequently as much damage as you get from a,say BT,Sierra,etc,only deeper,longer,and with broken bones to boot at the far end of the wound channel.

It just makes more sense to me that such bullets will be more reliable in the long run,than those that hit and fragment,limiting frontal area and penetration.

Such bullets have been killing elk successfully since when - the late 1940's? 160g Partitions, as loaded by Federal in 7mm RM, were my backup cartridges for many years.

In recent years, however, the elk have become smarter, tougher and more elusive and what once worked is now woefully inadequate. (If the trend continues they will soon develop opposable thumbs.) These days the successful elk hunter uses at least a .338-378 with heavy for caliber bullets. A .50BMG semi-auto Barrett with a big Nightforce scope is better, allowing hunters to shoot elk in the next county.

You might be able to kill an elk with a 200g Partition but you would need to get really lucky.

Yup, definitely true. A momentum transfer that is concerted all in one spot will definitely have a greater ability to damage an animal's tissues than a whole bunch of small fragments transferring their momentum to small bits of tissue. Much of this damage done by an expanding bullet as opposed to a bunch of bullet fragments (or buckshot) is caused because of the great deceleration of the bullet upon expansion (think about a dragster's deceleration when it opens the parachute), and the massive momentum and energy transfer that takes place. This is the physical definition of "power." The bullet that blows up on the surface will transfer a ton of its momentum and energy to the grapefruit-sized crater in the hide and surface of the chest, but only the fragments that enter the chest cavity will cause death. These fragments don't have the same expansion characteristic as the bullet, and so they transfer their momentum and energy at a much slower rate, causing less damage, and therefore, have less power (the rate at which energy is transmitted to an object) to incapacitate the animal's organs.

Ideally, for maximum damage, we would have a bullet that needled through the on-side hide, meeting no resistance, penetrated the ribs, and then transferred all of its momentum and energy to the tissues inside the chest cavity in an instant. Basically, the closest that we have seen so far to this is the Berger VLD. The problem though, as you pointed out, is that this only works when the situation is "ideal". When things aren't ideal, because we've placed all of our "momentum and energy" eggs in one basket, it can fail miserably if that transfer takes place before or after the bullet is in the chest cavity. Until we can program a bullet to recognize the vitals and then explode, the only method we have of building a bullet of this type is to design it so that the complete fragmentation takes place after a certain distance has been penetrated, or a certain amount of resistance has been met. Unfortunately, that amount varies with different shots angles, and since I don't always get a perfect broadside shot, I use other bullet designs.

The next best thing is to have a bullet that expands largely and rapidly, but still remains in one piece in order to maximize momentum retention and, therefore, penetration. Bullets like the TTSX, Bitterroot, North Fork, A-Frame, Partition, etc. expand very quickly, causing a large and rapid transfer of momentum and energy to the tissue (read: lots of damaging power), yet retain a large amount of their mass in one piece to retain their momentum, giving lots of straight line penetration.

The option causing the least damage is the solid, non-expanding bullet, which doesn't meet much resistance, transfers very little of its momentum and energy to the tissues, and usually doesn't do it very quickly compared to expanding bullets.

We have to keep in mind, though, that maximum damage isn't necessarily the objective here. First, I want to be able to eat the animal, not completely destroy it. Second, it takes a certain amount of damage to cause an animal's death, but that amount is far less than the maximum that we are able to cause with expanding bullets like the VLD. There is a point where enough damage is enough, and once that amount is reached to our individual satisfaction, we place the rest of our eggs into the basket of reliable penetration (by choosing a bullet which retains some it its mass in one piece, increasing momentum retention).

I'm with you Bob, I don't need VLD damage. I'm content with the damage done by bullets like the TSX, AB, NF, and others. I have the most experience with the X/TSX, and so I can say that I like the fact that I can eat right up to the hole when I use the TSX, I don't have fragments in my meat, I get full penetration from any angle, and enough damage is done that animals still die very quickly.

I would say that a 'solid doesn't kill well. A large meplat flat point does a lot of internal damage and kills very effectively in my experience.

I took this Bull with one shot and blood was pouring out of the entrance hole as well as the exit. The bullet was a 525 grain WLFN at about 1100 FPS




One of the Moose and One of the Bears were shot with LFN flat points and the results were dramtic





IMHO if small fragments were "efective", then we should go to #9 shot

jwp,

Notice that I never said that solids "don't kill well," I just said that they produce the least amount of damage of the 3 bullet designs I mentioned. They seem to kill humans just fine. I was also referring mostly to spitzer-style solids. Certainly flat points transfer momentum and energy much more quickly than do pointed solids.

Small fragments can be effective (as seen with the VLD), but only once they are into the vitals. Methinks that #9 might not get into the vitals of that big bison you shot

Jordan, I am feeling pretty dumb after reading your post because that is about as fine a synopsis of good bullet performance as I have read on here. I have been trying to explain that for a very long time but just lack the (duh!) skill sets to put it together and explain it that well.Excellent!

I think that you are correct about the 9 shot not making it into the vitails.

The flat points in rifle or handgun are an eye opener for any first time users. The wound and the amount of blood shot is much more than non users expect to see.

Any bullet that makes it into the heart lund area and then comes unglued will be very effective, but this type of projectile limits shot angles and penetration

jwp: Another BINGO! More than one good way to skin a cat ( or bison)! Great post! And reference to the bird shot is a very good analogy.

Bob,
Thank you for the kind words, but just because you're not a physicist doesn't make you dumb or lacking skills, not at all. To the contrary, you're one of the more intellectual guys that I know of around the campfire.

Exactly, which is why I don't use these types of bullets. I don't like limitations

+1..

Jordan/jwp: Thank you both.Ditto I am sure

Ackley was doing this stuff 60 years ago with the 220 Swift and the Ackley CE bullet.You guys are usuing way to much gun.
GS is doing it today aswell.
http://www.gsgroup.co.za/22x64.html
Really like the part about elk developing opposable thumbs.Cool.
dave

"More important is the rate at which energy is transferred and for what period of time, something retained energy figures alone cannot inform about."

Since we're giving out accolades, I just want to say that this was a fabulous response and the above portion especially profound.

OK it seem we all agree that the 200 partitions should do the job as long as I do my part.
I would that expect that 165 or 180 partitions should do the job satisfactorly at 400-500 yards loaded max out of the 300 WBY. Maybe not as good as 200s but still perform.
Many of you seem to have used this bullet to perfection.

I have used the 180 Partition on a couple of bulls out around 450-475 from a 300win mag, started at about 3125. It works fine at those distances.The 200 gr Partition penetrates a bit deeper than the 180,but the 180 penetrates far enough.

Barkoff this is the answer to your question... yes it can. The problem with that answer is this; it raises a much more important issue, and that issue is this: You. None of us are capable of being as good a shot as the rifle is capable of being accurate. So, while the answer is yes, the real question to ask is, "ethically, am I a good enough shot to kill that animal with this rifle, chambered in this cartridge, at that range?" If the answer is no, either practice, get a bigger rifle, or get closer. I would advise the latter, as a bigger rifle does not make you a better shot, can actually make you shoot worse if you develop a flinch. So, use the rifle that you are comfortable with, and practice with it at those ranges. (Remember that the U.S. Military has been using those cartridges(.308 & .30-06) for a long time as sniper rounds, and at ranges far exceeding 380 yards. Get out your ballistics chart, and practice.

I didn't have the time to read all the posts wish I had more Here is my take on your question .Killed a least one Elk a year from the time I was 18 and seen 3 times that many killed. Plan on killing one a year for next 30 years before I die. If my health,teeth are good and I can still eat them. The .30-06 is, and probably will always remain, the most popular elk cartridge because of the variety of rifles chambered for it, the availability of great controlled-expansion bullets and factory loads like Federal's High Energy and Hornady's Light Magnum put it right on the heels of magnum cartridges.
This link is a good one to go to and read.


http://www.gunhuntermag.com/Article...articleId/210/Elk-Rifle-Progression.aspx