Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
11-14-2006, 10:09 PM
#1
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sierra Nevadas., Ca
Posts: 1,050
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.
I'd be most interested in Hog and Deer, but other species would also be helpful.
Thanks.
11-14-2006, 10:50 PM
#3
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,345
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.
11-14-2006, 10:57 PM
#4
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sierra Nevadas., Ca
Posts: 1,050
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!
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!
11-14-2006, 11:18 PM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
ORIGINAL: elgallo114
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!
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!
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.
11-14-2006, 11:48 PM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sierra Nevadas., Ca
Posts: 1,050
RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
ORIGINAL: BrutalAttack
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.
ORIGINAL: elgallo114
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!
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!
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.
11-14-2006, 11:57 PM
#7
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
ORIGINAL: elgallo114
Do you read the same language you type? I've never said I was going to try and kill anything at those distances. I'm just curious. I shoot paper that far away. Not living things. I said that twice so far. Don't bash me if you're not gonna read my words.
ORIGINAL: BrutalAttack
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.
ORIGINAL: elgallo114
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!
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!
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.
ORIGINAL: elgallo114
I'm not shooting anything at distances of more than a couple hundred yards.
I'm not shooting anything at distances of more than a couple hundred yards.
ORIGINAL: elgallo114
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.
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.
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.
11-15-2006, 12:03 AM
#8
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Minimum ft/lbs./velocity
ORIGINAL: elgallo114
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
11-15-2006, 12:16 AM
#9
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sierra Nevadas., Ca
Posts: 1,050
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!
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!
11-15-2006, 12:57 AM
#10
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tri Cities, Washington
Posts: 1,616
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.[:'(]
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.[:'(]