Zugunruhe

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.

lemoyne

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

Tahquamenon

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

lemoyne

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

Tahquamenon

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.

cayugad

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.

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.

lemoyne

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

Tahquamenon

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.

cayugad

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.

gleason.chapman

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