ORIGINAL: Killer_Primate
There is nothing wrong with your example. However, rightfully so, you’ve customized your example to suit your argument. And it is a good example of what could really happen. But how many examples could we use?
Obviously, my hypothetical was just that. Hypothetical. I don't have a clue what the real numbers might be.
I would pose the question to you, using your example, why not try to get all 2900 ft-lbs of energy into the animal? You could do it, if you got a faster expanding projectile, but why? It is excessive, in my opinion to try to do so and would probably look more like an explosion took place than an animal getting shot.
I try to use bullets that are reasonably suited to the quarry. They expand properly and don't waste a lot of meat.
In your example, you’d be sending a projectile beyond your target with 1100 ft-lbs of energy. Is that responsible? In most cases, sure, in some, probably not. Since in your example you wasted 1100 lbs, you wasted gun powder, brass, copper and lead.
I don't think it's "wasted". It's there if needed for a slightly longer shot, or a quartering angle that might require a little more pop.
You probably spend more money on your rifle and the same rifle chambered in .223. And this situation is fine, but so is not wasting the energy.
Assuming the same rifle, I don't think it costs any more to get, say, a 700 SPS in .30-06 than a 700 SPS in .223. I've got three rifles that I use for deer. My 700 ADL .30-06 was a gift from my wife. Free. My 700 BDL 7mm Rem Mag was inherited. Free. My 700 ADL .243 was on sale for $249, with a two gun hard case thrown in for good measure. So, all three combined cost less than my AR15 .223...
Now, what if you only put 350 ft-lbs of energy into the deer? Keep in mind that is about the power of a .45 ACP which I’d have to assume that we’d agree is capable of traveling through the ribcage of a deer. Now you’ve got 2550 ft-lbs of energy going beyond your target.
I think that the second example is closer to reality than the first. I guess we’d have to compare a lot more than just energy and speed though to come to any real conclusion.
Taking an example from my martial arts classes, when breaking bricks and boards, the object is a full strength blow THROUGH the target. Not, hitting the target but instantaneously decreasing the velocity of hte strike. As I said earlier, I think a harder blow all the way through the target would logically be more devastating than a mild blow decreasing to virtual zero at the off-side of the target.