Judson

Today Woodseye stopped by my shop and after looking at a picture of a deer I shot comented that I did not seem to like shooting big deer. It is not that, you see I do not have enough rifle for the big deer.
I analyze everything, I noticed that probably the most popular small game rifle is the .22 Long rifle. Now for rabbits, squirrels and other such game this little cartridge is considered fine but the minimum. Hmmmm, 140 foot pounds for up to two pound animals, lets translate this. That is 70 pounds of energy for every pound of animal weight, so a 100 pound deer requires 7000 foot pounds of energy. Like I said, I do not have a big enough gun, My .366 D.G.W. has only a paultry 5775 to 6100 foot pounds depending on load. In reality even the little 100 pounders are too big for my rifles even right off the muzzle. What am I to do? Even the .585 Nyati with over 10,000 foot pounds of energy is only good for deer in the 145 pound class. I know, I will go to the WW2 57mm, now thats the ticket, and for the black powder hunting a 6" Parrot rifle should do the trick.
After all, what is over kill? You guys ever notice every time I think I get myself into trouble?

woodseye

I knew I never should have commented on the deer I was only joking,and a pellet rifle will kill rabbits so I think your safe with the above mentioned rifles for deer.Thanks for the use of the range and help on the rifle.Accu trigger was all the way light [:' (]need to figure out how to make it lighter []I know what,I' ll take you in where you will shoot a big deer this fall to redeme myself [:-]

woods

Judson

That sounds like a good deal!!!! How will we get w 1335 pound 57mm gun into a tree stand???
If I use my .366 you have to remember I only have 3995 foot pounds of energy at 300 yards,(my limit) and almost 2600 at 500 yards. If I have to use the .366 the deer will have to be close and then I am pushing things with my under powered rifle and shooting ability.
Enough kidding around, that Savage with that new trigger impressed me!! Factory Rem ammo and touching bullet holes at 100 yards!! I will say after shooting two rifles with those Kipplinger single set triggers the pull on your Savage seemed a bit heavy! However, I am spoiled!!! Being serious, best damn trigger on a factory rifle I have ever tried bar none!!!! I Was not a Savage fan but they are coming to the front!! Watch out Remington and Winchester.

JagMagMan

No such thing as overkill!!!!

doubleA

I' ve been living underneath a big rock here in TeXaS, could someone explain to me what a 366 DGW is? With that kind ft/lbs of energy it must have some serious velocities and or bullet weight.

AA

Judson

The .366 D.G.W. is a direct neck down of the .416 Rigby. It is flatter shooting with a 250 grain bullet then the .300 RUM with a 180 grain slug. As a matter of fact it is flatter then the .338/378, .338 Lapua or the .378 Weatherby. I have to check but due to the ballistic cof and sectional density of 9.3 slugs I think it even beats the .30/378. However there is no dispute, it will bullet for bullet out penitrate any sporting cartridge in the world!!! All this from a 24" barrel, I am trying to get the balistics posted so bare with me. All figures are at Rigby pressures, in other words high 40s to low 50s.

woodseye

eldeguello

Judson, you would be right if what we call a ft/lb of energy was really a foot/pound! That is, if a .22 could actually move a pound 147 feet, which we all know is B.S. This is merely an expression of an arbitrary value which allows some comparison of the energy output of various cartridges. They had to call it something, but maybe " ORGS" or " GRONKS" or some such would have kept people from making erroneous assumptions, like the one which asserts that the .45 ACP 230-grain ball round will pick a person up and physically throw him back for several feet!

BTW, that .366 is certainly impressive!!

Nomercy

eldeguello, I' m no expert, but getting there (double majoring in chemical engineering and physics), yes, ft.lbs. ARE in fact a direct manipulation of mass and velocity, in this case, weight and position, kind of a tricky manipulation, since pounds isn' t a mass, it' s a weight, in which the acceleration of gravity plays a part, so basically you' re multiplying mass*feet/second/second by the distance traveled/sec. In an ' ideal environment' , yes, the pressure exerted in a .22lr round would be sufficient to heave a one pound object 147ft, BUT, remember, we don' t shoot in an ideal environment, we have friction. Without air resistance, barrel friction, energy loss of impacts (energy is lost in any impact as a result of static friction, heat generation, even sound generation, impact surface depression and rebound, etc.), and a million other variables that the ' real world' imposes upon our rounds, the published data would be virtually an exact representation of the capabilities of the cartridge. The biggest factor, I' m sure, when you go shooting a 1# block of anything with a .22lr as to why it won' t fly 150ft is that the bullet is going to explode upon impact, it' s easier for the bullet to rebound so quickly as to destroy itself than to overcome the static friction of the block and the air surrounding it, the rest of the variables above would attribute to this loss, but this would be the major factor I' m sure. If you could get a .22lr bullet to retain 100% of it' s mass and exact original shape upon an impact, I guarantee that it would throw that block a goodly distance, maybe not 147ft because the air resistance on the block would be massive (although it would in an ideal environment for sure).

Picture this, this is probably the easiest way to describe published energy tables. Don' t think of it as lifting and throwing the block, put both on an ice rink<---' frictionless' plane, then shoot the block with a bullet that doesn' t explode on impact OR penetrate at all, the impact is perfectly elastic, and in an exactly straight vector. If you could actually accomplish this, the resultant movement of the block should be a bit less 147ft, because it doesn' t have to fight MUCH friction, the air resistance would be almost as much as the friction exerted by the ice.

Where they actually derived the standard for ft.lbs. was experimentation in a vaccuum at sea level (since you acutally weigh less on a mountain than you do in the valley, long story there), they released known ' weight' objects from known heights, i.e. a 1# block of steel from 1ft, the resultant energy was 1ft.*1#=1ft.lb.

Judson

Thanks for the compliment on the .366. You are right about the FP thing what we are really talking about is kinetec energy. Muzzle energy is in reality a very poor way of judging cartridge performance. For example look at the M.E. of the .45/70 and the 30-30, on paper both are rather close energy wise. Shoot a deer with them at say 50 yards and what a difference. Also your point about the 45 ACP is partially true. Bullets with a large frontal area do exert more force against the target then smaller diameter bullets. The faster a bullet is going the less this becomes a factor. This is why African P.H.s like " Big and slow" Under 2300 F.P.S. and over 40 cal. The vast majority of the energy released by a bullet hitting is released inside the target, not against it. Unless one is wearing a bullet proof vest it ain' t going to throw you across the room. Think about this for a second. I am sure we have all shot a woodchuck or somthing simular in size with somthing like a 30-06. If you look at the energy per pound of critter then that woodchuck should have been knocked into the next county if bullets knocked things backward.