Everyobdy knows, that ever since ballistics tables have come out, that deer and other game have gotten a lot tougher.

I really wanted to get into this discussion, but hell I don't know where to start, it's done got to ugly! I do know that the 30-30 was once enough to kill them all but now you need at least a 300mag, so much for progress.

One component of this issue worth taking into consideration is whether the impact velocity of the bullet at 800 yards is still above the 2,000 fps threshold. Because much below that, bullets can generally only make a wound channel the size of their frontal diameter. If the bullet is fairly large to begin with, then this may not be much of a problem. But if the bullet is 105 grain .243, it really needs the impact velocity to make a respectable wound channel. Sometimes I hate to see debates get fired up over this foot pounds quantification. All that really matters is the size/shape of permanent wound channel the bullet can produce once it strikes the animal.

Brutal, you need to work on your people skills, son you must have played hookie the day they taught that stuff!

Exactamoondoe ! Energy doesnt kill anything. The size of the hole does.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!

That's why I never mentined the .243. or for that matter a .357 at 200 yards. But for what ever reason "Mr. I know everything that has anything to do with anything" jutst pulls crap out of the air and seems to think he is able to read peoples minds. On top of everything else he thinks he knows.

Kinetic energyfigures alone amounts to absolute crap. There are way too many othervariables to keep in mind when talking about terminalballistics of bullets.

Wow. I just had a simple, curiosity only, question.

I know I might not have made it clear enough in the begining, but I think I made it more than clear soon after.

It would seem that I didn't offer enough information to answer the real question anyway, but thanks to all of you, I think I have my answer.

And, with a grain of salt, thanks to Brutal. That website with the calculator did help.

To Brutal and all others who jumped all over the ethics quesiton, I say this. RELAX. Just because someone attempts to answer a question, does not mean they are RECOMMENDINGit to anyone. I never said I was going to try it. I never said it should be done. I've hunted for years. Long range target shooting is a newish hobby of mine. While thinking about those long ranges, my buddy and I just wondered about something and I told him this was a great place to ask those types of questions. He's not impressed so far.

Some of us need to calm the hell down. Just because someone might be suggesting something unethical, does not mean everyone is going to run out and do it. And just because someone tells another not to do it, does not mean he won't. If you don't like the scenario, and think even answering is irresponsible, then just keep your mouth shut. If you think it's so important to tell someone they are wrong, then doing it in such a stupid and rude way is not usually the most convincing way.

That being said, I'm going to go take a 2000 yard shot at an endangered species. (Smiley inserted to denote sarcasm.)

Well, there are some variables that come into play, which would make the answer vary also. However, in Hatcher's Notebook, I find (p407-408), that the 30-caliber, 150-grain M2 Ball bullet, striking at 140 FPS, carries 100 foot-pounds of energy, and this was considered the minimum velocity/energy level to inflict a wound on the human body. It does not say what the extent of such a wound would be, however.

Deer and hogs were not mentioned.....

(I still continue to be tickled by the guys who maintain - a lot of whom should know better-that it takes "X" foot-pounds of energy to kill a deer, a bear, an elephant, etc., and never qualify their claims at all by describing the type and size of the required projectile! Let's say it DOES take 1000 ft/lb to kill a 150-pound whitetail buck. If that's true, then what is required to kill a 7.5 ton bull elephant? Here we need 6.6 ft/lb per pound to kill the deer. Does it likewise require 6.6 ft/lb per pound to kill the elephant? If so, we need a bulletthat impacts with 99,999 ft/lb! Now, I seriously doubt that anyone here would care to fire it, even if such a rifle existed! For the sake of comparison, lets use an elephant rifle that delivers8000 ft/lb of energy at the elephant. If this is enough to kill the 15,000 pound elephant, that's only 0.53 foot-pounds of energy per pound of elephant! Deer are therefore 12.375 times more difficult to kill on a pound-for-pound basis than elephant!

I suspect that even if the "foot-pounds of energy" figure is useful for comparing rifles that fire bullets of similar diameter and construction, it is NOT useful in determining what is required to kill various game animals. For example,I have a .73-caliber Jaeger rifle that fires a .735", 597.5 grain pure lead round ball at a MV of 1600 FPS. I would be willing to bet that this contraption will kill a moose or elk just as quickly, within 100 yards, as a 7mm Rem. Mag. that carries almost twice the foot/pounds of energy, given identical points of impact on the game.)