Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

I think it was Elmer Keith that came up with the rule of thumb that it takes 800 ft. lbs. of energy to cleanly dispatch medium sized game. What are your thoughts on this? I mean seriously, does a deer know the difference between 700 ft. lbs. and 800 ft. lbs. down range?

I ask this because I repeatedly see kills on here at ranges far greater than where the bullet "should" be performing according to the above logic. For instance, a common load of 85 or 90 grains of Pyro RS and a 240gr. XTP moves out of the barrel at a little over 1600 fps. According to the ballistics tables, this load dips below the 800 ft. lbs. of energy at around 136 yards but I know we've seen reports here of longer shots with that powder/bullet combination.

Is this just another "how dead is dead" exercise, or is the 800 ft. lbs. benchmark a useful thought for bullet selection?

I ask this partly because my gun dislikes 777, crud rings so bad that even the second shot after a wet patch/dry patch is difficult to load irrespective of bullet type (sabot or conical). I'd like the extra velocity boost that 777 offers to up downrange energy, but if it cruds up my rifle I'll stick with RS.

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

I have read all that info about how many foot pound of enegry you should have according to different peoples theory; the problem when you come right down to whats proven and whats not is that this is all just some bodys opinion.
Some of the things we do know like the fact that if placed right [and I do not mean the brain or spine] a 54 cal round ball will drop game like deer and bear on the spot clear out to 200yds of my own experance and that specalized eliminators that the anti hunters prefer to a hunting season and poachers often use weapons that kill with preasion rather than power.
There is another thing that demonstrates this, there was never a bow or cross bow made that developed 800 foot pounds yet every type and kind of game that walks the earth has been taken with bows and crossbow they even have been used to penatrate armor in the middle ages.
SHOT PLACEMENT is more important than foot pounds and PENATRATION is too, after that its a matter of what you are using and what you are trying to accomplish some people want an exit hole some people want a bang flop , I would like to have both and can get it on deer size but when steping up to BIG game I go for more penatration. Lee

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

I suppose I've alwaysfactored inthe 800ft.lbs rule but in truth much, muchless kinetic energy is needed for actual killing power. All things being equal with a given projectile (which we all know is not the case).

Consider that bow huntingin the best case velocity (300ish fps)is less than 100 ftlbs. of kinetic energy with the average weight arrow of say 4-500grains (muchless depending on the fps of the bowand the weight ofthe arrow). Granted the broadhead comes into play and is a crucial factor but the kinetic enegery with a bow is very low as compared to a ML.

I'm not saying that folks should start hunting deer+with purposly light loads, but at one point in time the rule was approximately the amount of BP in relation to the caliber of the rifle. e.g. 50cal=50Gr powder.

M2C,

Tahquamenon

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

Tahquamenon,I was shocked when I found out that I had been dropping deer on the spot I hit them for years with my 54 at ranges that it had less than 800 foot pounds; after I thought it out I decieded that the amount of enegry involved was less critical than the way it is applied. The way a 54 cal round ball can flatten out and then roll it self back into a ball and keep penatrating has amazed me ever since I realized what was happening for a long time I did not think I would ever see an inline that had the killing power of a 54. Lee

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

I agree completely.

If you think about it, unless you are hitting heavy bone (not ribs) it does not take much to penetrate through soft tissues.

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

Well the charts are all fine and good, but I never saw a chart kill an animal yet. I am not going to down play the importance of bullet performance information. I think they have a lot of valid value. It helps us know whether or not the bullet we select is UP for the job we want it to do. BUT that does not mean that something less would not do the same thing. I think the most important thing is and always will be SHOT PLACEMENT.

Consider the roundball. Probably the most under rated projectile out there actually. There are some in this sport that according to charts feel a roundball has no killing power after some very close distances. If you look at the charts and the ballistics a roundball shows, they have a valid argument. Or do they?

A .50 caliber roundball is .490 in diameter. After it his and expands even a little, we are talking a 1/2 inch projectile plowing its way through vital organs, This projectile is cutting, tearing and releasing any energy left into the vital organs. If you cut a 1/2 hole through vital organs like the heart or the lungs, the animal shot, is in major danger or organ meltdown. That causes death.

I read a forum post of a .530 roundball fired from 90 grains of Pyrodex RS, killing a moose. The ball penetrated the thick hide and hit the heart. The amazing thins is the moose was 160 yards away. That was shot placement, with a projectile with still enough energy to penetrate, probably expand a little, and injure major organs. No Chart needed. :D

So something placed correctly, with proper expansion, and with still enough energy and velocity to penetrate to vital organs, only makes sense that it would cause the death of the animal. Then we have the idea of a better performing projectiles. The Nosler 300 grain .458 that Sabotloader used to shoot his elk is a perfect example. 200 yard distance, good velocity, excellent expansion, excellent penetration, = dead elk.

So while charts are all fine and good, I think they do not take into consideration the placement of bullets. Also they need to address the characterstics of muzzleloader projectiles. As I said, I am not a ballistics guru, I only concentrate on accuracy, and shot placement, and all of this has never let me down. No matter what distance I was faced with.

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

cayugad,I agree with what you said if it is applied correctly, the " charts as such do not take "muzzleloaders" into consideration. And circumstances can change things for instance the bit about expansion the most dangerious game is normally hunted with bullets that are designed so the wont expand. I guess what we are getting at is that you have to interperate charts and other ballistic data correctly and apply it correctly which generally takes a certain amout of experance. Lee

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

Exactly Lemoyne. I am not saying charts do not have their value because they do. I just do not totallyhang myhat on what they say, as I have seen far too many strange things that muzzleloader bullets can do. I think that is one of their things that draw me to them for shooting and hunting.

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

Also true statements in my view.

Which is part of the why Michigan did away with the minimum ML caliber for deer hunting a few years ago. Also in part with the energy associated with bow hunting which is allowed. Makes for little sense making a ML be 45+ caliber when bow hunting kinetic energy is so low.

Any ML caliber is allowed fordeer in Michigan. Which with good shot placement and a reasonable accurate load and projectilewill certainly be capable of harvesting deer and other game in that size category.

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

I have been very interested in the same subject. I believe it is wound channel and tissue disruption which is a function of shot placement, penetration and expansion.Please see this:

http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html


A summary of the paper is this:


[blockquote]This paper is another landmark by Dr. Fackler in scientific research about terminal ballistics. It explains why most of what you read about this subject in newspapers, politicized medical journals and gun magazines is grossly wrong. Dr. Fackler's research and experience bear directly on the proper treatment of different gunshot wound types. [/blockquote]

Here is how I rank bullets that I know (my opinion only, not intending to start a bullet war, but just want to show ya what I think), best to least from a Terminal performance POV at ML ranges:

Barnes MZ, Flat Nose bullet
Barnes TMZ, X bullet, XPB
Barnes Origonal (fragments some, abotu 30%)
Nosler partition
Speer Gold Dot
Cast Bullets and Flat Nose bullets (Elmer Keith)
TC SW bonded
TC SW non-bonded
XTP

.....whatever
Knight all lead bullet (used them first season killed 5 deer, good expansion, no pass thru)

..whatever

PowerBelt
Patched Round Ball

Chap Gleason

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

cayugad, thats proably why we like to shoot so much, the amout I like to shoot could not be justified by anything but enjoying shooting. Lee

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

I do not put alot of credibility on "kinetic energy's"---"killing ability". A 22-250 at 4,000 fps has more KE than a 45-70 at 1200 fps, but I sure know which one does a better job of putting game down. There are so many variables involved that it can get very confusing. If you step up to a 165 grain 30 caliber bullet at 3200 fps-then all of a sudden the KE becomes a factor again.

MZ's have the distinct advantage of making a big, clean hole. I think the wound channel of just the bullet is all that is necessary. That is why some hunter's use a 45-70 at 1200 fps. They say they can eat right upto the hole, and as Cayugad said-it is a big hole!!!

IMO as long as you have enough down range energy to assure penetration to the vitals, then you have enough energy to assure a clean kill. How else could a 45-70 at 1200fps kill a buffalo at 1,000 yards. It does not take alot of velocity or energy to get a pure lead conical to expand. And if you are shooting conical's just remember(again as Cayugad said) you have a 1/2 inch hole to start with. Tom.

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

Agreed, because it got into the vitals and there is enough energy to do major damage because the bullet is so large. Chap

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

But if you take that 22-250 and puta "varmint" typebullet in the deer's neck it will drop on the spot!
No - I'm not advocating light calibers as being better, I'm just saying it all comes down to the bullet's design, how it performs at the velocity it is going, and putting it where it takes advantage of that performance.
That same 22-250 bullet through a deer's chest very likely will leave a wounded deer to escape & die later. A big .50 conical through a deer's neck may end up in a lost deer, too. But put that conical in the shoulder and you'll be eating venison.
As for the 800fpe minimum, it's a good suggestion, but not a scientific fact. I'd try to stay close to it as a guideline,and asthe load drops below that figure bullet placement becomes even more important.

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

Something tells me the 800lbs was just something thinking about how much energy it takes to disrupt internals enough to destroy them, not about holes in lungs or slicing tissue. Kinda like how hard you'd have to hit a deer in the side with a hammer (or another blunt object)?

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

Agreed. Please see

http://www.barnesbullets.com/information/product-news/publication-mentions/battlin-bullets/

Chap

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

Chap, thanks for the link. I always enjoy the articles you manage to dig up.

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

We never did discuss the range part of that question or that awful 777
To start with accuracy is the most important commponant of range how far is long range to you?
Do you realize that while it may take a little more powder to do it Pyrodex will often give higher velocity with the same pressure?
AND there is the new powder coming to the shelves [we hope] in Apil or May, advertised as cleaner than any other sub with 10 percent more velocity and noncorosive.
Lee

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

lemonyne-

I read the write up on the new powder on the High Performance Muzzleloading site. I'll probably try some when it hits the shelves.

Now, I should say that I'm only into my first year of muzzleloading. I do a lot of reading and researching before I get into things, and I like to tinker when it gets right down to it so muzzleloading is right up my alley. As range goes, I live in Iowa where shots in timber seldom exceed 75 yards, but field edges and CRP can easily get you out to 200 yards. I'm just starting to work up loads and looking for something with a MPBR of 150-175 yards with the ability to get the job done out to 200 if need be. Learning as I go! Current load I am working on is with 270gr. Gold Dots (.44/.429) and the green Knight/MMP sabots. I was shooting 100gr. of Pyro RS with it last night and at 25 yds. (dialing in scope) it shot really well. Took two shots to get it where I wanted it, then fired five more for effect where three found the same ragged hole and the other two were nearly touching. This is the first time I've shot that heavy a load of Pyro and I'll say the fouling on the breach plug was the worst I've experienced yet. Most loads I've shot with Pyro were with 85gr. and they were compartively clean. Absent a chronograph, I'd guess this load is probably in the area of 1700 fps.

I had started this bullet/sabot combination off with 90gr. of 7772f expecting similar velocities and then maybe working up to 100gr. and over 1800 fps. It is simply too difficult to load though in my gun on successive shots. With Pyro, a damp patch and a dry patch is all I need between shots to remove fouling in the barrel- no crud ring to deal with.

I think this bullet has potential, good compromise of weight and attainable velocity with the design to hold together on game. It also has a decent BC (.193) so longer range trajectory should be workable. I just need to shoot it some more and see what it can do. My brother has some 777 pellets, I may try them and see if the fouling is any different.

Now, back to where I started, here is an article I found that says a lot about why lower velocity, larger caliber bullets get the job done on game of all sizes- sometimes ever better than hyper velocity centerfire rounds:

http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammunition/hunt_121305/index.html

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

There is one thing you might look into: The 200gr SW has a .269 BC which is the best I have found in a bullet for muzzle loading that was light enough the push up to a really decent velocity with a normal load it also has a better SD than any other bullet you can get that kind of velocity out of.
My Omega load for them is 150gr [3 pellets] pyrodex it will shoot under 1.5 inches and several times when the wind was still the light was just right and I was shooting good I have gotten 3/4 inch 1 hole groups. I have used them and the 40cal[10mm] on deer and boar and read where a couple had use them on moose so far every one has had excellant results and they are the only bullet that I have gotten to shoot good with max loads; they shoot very well with 100grs too but the group spreads out in between. with 150 grs they shoot close to 2300 FPS which is one of the reasons they shoot so flat. 3inches high at 100 and 4 inches low at 200, I do not believe there is a bullet sabot combo that is better if your gun will shoot them like both of mine do, I have to use 110gr of 777-FF in the Triumph it shoots 777 better than Pyrodex [ the only thing wrong with it. Lee

RE: Your thoughts on energy and range...
 

Thanks, I am glad you enjoyed it. I have a whole folder on "Bullet Performance" and within that folder I have folders for different types of bullets (XTP, PB, Barnes, Parker Ballistic Extreme, SST, etc) and articles on performance or lack of performance on each bullet. Chap