Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Does anyone know, or know how I can find out, what the minimum foot pounds of energy combined with minimum velocity that a .30 cal. round would have to have to penetrate the chest cavity of different species?

I'd be most interested in Hog and Deer, but other species would also be helpful.

Thanks.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Look up the Sectional Density of the given loading.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

I think there's too many variables to make sometype of equation for what you're asking. I may be wrong. There are charts though as to recommended minimum ft/lb for given game. I've seen 1,000ft/lbs and 800ft/lbs for deer. I don't know about hogs. Here's what I do know...that guideline isn't the end-all be-all. A 55gr bullet in .22 diameter can produce 1,200 ft/lbs from a 22-250 or 220 swift...yet they won't penetrate a deer.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Let me clarify something before I piss people off. I'm not shooting anything at distances of more than a couple hundred yards. '

My buddy and I are shooting at 800 yards. We know the remaining foot pounds of energy and velocity at the impact on paper. We just got curious as to whether, if it did hit an animal, it would have enough left on it to do any damage.

It's more a question of curiosity than anything else. We work nights together and now we are too curious to let it go. I'm gonna find out somehow!:D

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

The type of numbers you are looking for are somewhat arbitrary in nature.

I hesitate to give you advice of any kind since you are obviously not interested ina responsible and reasonable kill.

Based on what the experts say I would go with something with around 1k ft/lbs retained energy.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Let me clarify my clarification. What I meant to say was that we are shooting PAPER at 800 yards. NOT ANIMALS. We just got curious when going over the ballistics of our cartidges at 800 yards. That's all. Don't shoot me. I'm not advocating anyone shoot or not shoot at any distance, but I'm just asking a hypothetical question. I know the round can reach 800 and well beyond. I know they can penetrate an unprotected human chest cavity with the remaining foot pounds of energy and velocity. I'm just wondering if a deer, elk, hog, or whatever, would have a much better survival rate. I'm not an expert at anything, but I figured that these animals would have much tougher skins and fat layers than a human would. The only reason deer and hog would interest me more is just because that's what I hunt. In reality, I shoot animals at ranges in the 50 to 100 yard range.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

I don't think the issue was so much with me not understanding as it was you not being entirely clear. I'm college educated so I'm yeah I'm pretty sure I know a little about the written word, but thanks.


Followed by:



Yeah clear as a bell? Maybe if you're autistic.

If you think my comment was"bashing" you're probably overreacting just a tad bit. :(

Oh and you're welcome for the free advice.I guess it would be too much trouble for you to say anything nice about me taking the time tohelp you with yourquestion, valid or not.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Let me clarify my answer as best I can from reading what some of the "experts" think.

From what I've read, to make a reasonable kill on a thin skinned animal such as you have mentioned, would IMO require around 1k ft/lbs retained energy. This is assuming that this takes place in a vaccum but we know that in hunting situations it does not. Read on.

Of course much of that is dependent on bullet design. Would it have enough velocity to expand sufficiently to transfer said retained energy at that distance? That is a whole nother set of variables.

There are bullets designed for rapid expansion at long distances and lower velocities.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

You read my response before I went back and re-read mine, then deleted my answer and re-posted. Follow that college grad?

This is just a light hearted question that doesn't mean anything in the long run.

By the way, which college did you go to? I went to MCRD in San Diego. My diploma blows yours away!:D

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

elqallo, This is the internet, Brutal can be whoever he would like to be. Professional hunter here, probably a cross stitching expert on some other board. His condescending attitude gets old real fast. Then when someone challenges him, he just replies with something like, "Who are YOU to challenge ME?".

I would just like to see some pictures of some of his successes, but I doubt it. He doesn't have to prove anything to anyone.[:'(]

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Sorry, double post.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

[quote]ORIGINAL: BrutalAttack

That's what I'm asking. What would the minimum combination of velocity and foot pounds be. Then again, you bring up a good point, depends on the type of bullet. Let's assume a co-efficient of .500 and a muzzle velocity of 3240. Now there are not too many left over variables to consider.

In the end, the real question would depend on the animal itself. Given that most species would be similar enough to each other that an "average" could be made, then what type of velocity and foot pounds of energy would the "average" adult male hog require to penetrate the chest cavity with a bullet with the above mentioned ballistics?

I just wondered. Is there a formula for density vs. velocity and energy? Or is there some chart made up by a hunting fanatic? I just wondered. That's all.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Yeah you edited your post while I was writing mine. But I captured your jerky reply before you could edit and I'm sure you didn't like that. Follow?

Oh and yes I'm sure you're very special. At least your mom thinks so. :)

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

lol, :D

you might dig up my first big bull if you look hard enough.








I'm sure that's how you imagine me anyway lol.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Here just might be what you're looking for:

http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/calculations/calculations.html

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

First, you need to get some experience, and then you can come back. Dad gone man, sounds like nobody believes your fantasies.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Deer are pretty simular to people in size and construction, so if it would pentitrate a person it will most likely do it to a deer. If you are asking if you could kill a deer by accident when shooting at 800 yards, most likely if you are shooting anything that will reach that distance it will still have enough energy to injure an animal. A .308 will kill a human at 1000 meters with a well placed shot. Deer are not that hard to kill, they just don't respond the same to pain and will run farther when hit, and they have a better circulatory system then we do obviously. So it seems like they are harder to kill. The truth is they are dead, they just don't know it yet.

Hogs are bit tougher, but not bullet proof by any means.

The figures you see are what some so called experts say you need to make an effecient, ethical kill. And it varies quite a bit depending on what you read and who you talk to. That does not however mean a projectile moving much slower can't kill an animal. If it punctures a lung or severs an artery it will die. I mean people can kill moose with a bow and arrow.

How far the bullet would penitrate an animal would really depend on the weight of the bullet, the speed at impact and how the bullet was designed. A FMJ bullet would penitrate more than a bullet disigned to expand on impact. Unless however it it didn't have enough speed to expand;).

And for the record some of the dumbest people I have met were college educated, and some of the smartest were high school drop outs. I know a few engineers that are plenty book smart, but I honestly don't know how they dress themselves in the mornings they are so out of touch with reality.

Paul

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Bullet construction will play a major role but the bottom line is that a few hundred foot pounds is all it takes to cleanly kill a deer sized animal. Most of the so called experts that come up with the charts are far from experts. Most reccomend 1000 for deer and 1500 for elk. Hogwash. You don't need anywhere that amount of energy.

Remember that you only need to get half way in to put a bullet through the heart of an animal.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

So you'd feel comfortable hitting an elk at 400 yards with a .243 (Sierra GameKing 1021 ft/lbs)?? If it doesn't take "near 1500" ft/lbs then I guess you would be.

You're irresponsible to even suggest that. I hope you're joking.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Wow look out we have a MENSA appilcant here. :eek:Thanks Captain Obvious.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

BA, Paul and BigBulls can fend for themselves but I'd really like to know where you get off being, and making, a complete jerk of yourself to other forum members?

Nobody suggested a .243 except for YOU

And sometimes, just sometimes a ;) hints as some humor. Way to try and make yourself look cool/smart/superior or whatever it is you're going after.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Experience huh? I bet I've killed more elk this year than you have your whole life. I do it for a living. I have two bulls over 300 B&C. Do you?

Is that experienced enough for you?

I'm not trying to brag but I'll also not allow you to insult me. You're from back east for crying out loud and you question my experience?

Sheesh....:eek:

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Sure, you have. :D One thing you crack me up. Listen man, nobody believes you. Give it up. Graduate high school and come back

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

DidI mention anything about a .243?

I certainly don't recall it.

There is a lot more to clean kills than just saying that you need "X" ammount of energy. I can take a .357 magnum with a 180 grain cast core bullet and kill any elk that walks this planet. It generates a whopping 450 foot pounds of KE at the muzzle. And yes, someone that knows what they are doing could take a .243 with a barnes TSX and cleanly kill elk at 400 yards

You know I (others as well)try and try to be nice and not talk bad about you or post things in a derogatory manner and even offer advice to you concerning your own thread but it seems that you just like to piss folks off here.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Actually you would be suprised at the amount of people that don't know basic information like this. I really didn't post it for you, I figured you knew it as do some others. However there are hundreds of people that visit this site and read the posts that never comment. They are just looking for information.

Not everyone is a college professor or expert ballistician ( probably spelled that wrong, but then you are probably the only person that cares).

What I posted really had nothing to do with you nor required your input. You added nothing by trying to make me look foolish, which most likely backfired on you. I gave my opinion, which is really all it is and tried to help someone. All you seem to be interested in is making every one else look bad and you smarter. When in reality it just makes you look like an ass. Just give your opinion and be done with it already, because that is all it really is, your opinion.

I look for this thread to locked soon since it really has nothing to do with the topic anymore.

Paul

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Brutal ?. I'll show you brutal.........................

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Of course this has everything to do with the topic. There are people on here basically stating that there is no minimum for lethal ft/lbs. I disagree and I think that view is irresponsible. It's called a discussion.


Sorry about that my post was unecessary and rude. I apologize.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

Does that jog your memory perhaps?

Well, if it's hogwash and you don't need anywhere near 1500 ft/lbs to drop an elk then I guess a .243 at 400yards has over 1k ft/lbs so that should be ok for elk right? That's what I'm getting from what you said.

As hunters I don't think we should never reccomend to someone something like that. Just because something is possible doesn'tmean we should reccomend it.

So I suppose you're out with your .357 trying to bag an elk? Of course not don't be silly.

I feel it's much better to err on the side of caution. That is, if you're interested in providing as quick and clean a kill as possible, which I'm hoping you all are if you're hunters.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

For a bunch of grown men ya'll act like children, actually, I don't there are many people on this forum over the age of 12, Brutal made a statment that brings up a very good point, who cares if its "possible", it should be a humane and very clean kill, and i don't think too many people are lining up to kill an elk at 400 yards with a .243, or a .357 for that matter, bigulls, I want you to go and kill an elk at 200 yards with your .357 magnum, and then post the pics on here, after all its possible right?

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

I used to be allcaught up into the1000 pound of energy rule for whitetails until I saw how quickly a deer will die from my .50 cal roundball. My velocity is about 1800 or so fps, with energy well below 1000 foot pounds. Many elk are and have been taken with .50 cal round balls or .54 cal, and I can guarantee you that 1500 foot pounds is completely out of the equation.

I don't guess deer were cleanly taken until magazines with ballistics tables hit the newstands. Really to become an expert on the matter, all you would have to do is write an article, or a book. The ones that really consider themselves experts are the people who read the articles.

As far as the 800 yard shot...I think the question is can you hit where you are aiming. Just one little gust of wind, and instead of hitting the vitals, you might hit the deer in the butt. Then the bigger question is will the bullet perform the way it should with the velocity drop you would have.

I personally wouldn't consider it, but it is fun to talk about.

C. Davis

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

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

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

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.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

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.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

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

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

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

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

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.

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

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.)

RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
 

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.)