Whitetail Deer Hunting Gain a better understanding of the World's most popular big game animal and the techniques that will help you become a better deer hunter.

.223 for Deer Hunting

Old 10-29-2009, 06:42 AM
  #101  
Giant Nontypical
 
TFOX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: HENDERSON KY USA
Posts: 6,634
Default

Found another great paragraph.

Designing a bullet for efficient transfer of energy to a particular target is not straightforward, for targets differ. To penetrate the thick hide and tough bone of an elephant, the bullet must be pointed, of small diameter, and durable enough to resist disintegration. However, such a bullet would penetrate most human tissues like a spear, doing little more damage than a knife wound. A bullet designed to damage human tissues would need some sort of "brakes" so that all the KE was transmitted to the target.
TFOX is offline  
Old 10-29-2009, 07:56 AM
  #102  
Nontypical Buck
 
iSnipe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,304
Default

You know what's the funny part about all this contestation? It's that no one here changed their mind from the very beginning. Thus was and is a waste of time to continue.

I have to chuckle at the enormity of time that transpired to create these posts and all for naught. Each party feeling there's a significance of importance in their words, except it falls on deaf ears because no one is changing their mind. So if one engages in a "discussion" whereas there is back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, yet the other party has not changed their thinking, then what does that resolve?

Nothing, just that they got more typing practice.

LOL!

iSnipe
iSnipe is offline  
Old 10-29-2009, 08:02 AM
  #103  
Nontypical Buck
 
halfbakedi420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: central and east texas
Posts: 4,894
Default

Originally Posted by iSnipe
You know what's the funny part about all this contestation? It's that no one here changed their mind from the very beginning. Thus was and is a waste of time to continue.

I have to chuckle at the enormity of time that transpired to create these posts and all for naught. Each party feeling there's a significance of importance in their words, except it falls on deaf ears because no one is changing their mind. So if one engages in a "discussion" whereas there is back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, yet the other party has not changed their thinking, then what does that resolve?

Nothing, just that they got more typing practice.

LOL!


iSnipe


lol i am gonna have to agree, cause im not changin what i know , for what someone else says.....had i never used a 223 , this post would definitely make me try fer myself to see what a 223 will/wont do!
halfbakedi420 is offline  
Old 10-29-2009, 08:31 AM
  #104  
Giant Nontypical
 
TFOX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: HENDERSON KY USA
Posts: 6,634
Default

Originally Posted by iSnipe
You know what's the funny part about all this contestation? It's that no one here changed their mind from the very beginning. Thus was and is a waste of time to continue.

I have to chuckle at the enormity of time that transpired to create these posts and all for naught. Each party feeling there's a significance of importance in their words, except it falls on deaf ears because no one is changing their mind. So if one engages in a "discussion" whereas there is back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, yet the other party has not changed their thinking, then what does that resolve?

Nothing, just that they got more typing practice.

LOL!




iSnipe


Actually,those willing to learn actually learned something.

I showed the actuall scientific explanantions..Those willing to except it,great,they learned something.


I have been out of work for 3 months so time is something I have,untill next week when i go back.

Last edited by TFOX; 10-29-2009 at 08:34 AM.
TFOX is offline  
Old 10-29-2009, 08:42 AM
  #105  
Nontypical Buck
 
iSnipe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,304
Default

Yes sir, TFOX, I have read and learned some things, yes. However...

I didn't change my mind.

LOL! Good stuff though.

iSnipe
iSnipe is offline  
Old 10-29-2009, 09:02 AM
  #106  
Spike
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 22
Default

a 22lr will kill a deer if you make a good shot at a reasonable range, so i would be all for the 223 for a young hunter. take the time to practice with her so she feels comfortable and dont let her take a shot at an unreasonable range. i ahve a 204 and i have shot a few deer with it and does just fine.
Strutter! is offline  
Old 10-29-2009, 11:07 AM
  #107  
Nontypical Buck
 
hubby11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Clifton, VA
Posts: 1,083
Default

Originally Posted by iSnipe
You know what's the funny part about all this contestation? It's that no one here changed their mind from the very beginning. Thus was and is a waste of time to continue.

I have to chuckle at the enormity of time that transpired to create these posts and all for naught. Each party feeling there's a significance of importance in their words, except it falls on deaf ears because no one is changing their mind. So if one engages in a "discussion" whereas there is back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, yet the other party has not changed their thinking, then what does that resolve?

Nothing, just that they got more typing practice.

LOL!

iSnipe
Sorry, gotta disagree here. For every one that has posted on this subject, there are several like me who read the thread without posting. In my case, it's because I don't have enough experience to voice an opinion. It may be that no one who has posted has change his/her mind, but there are several who have learned quite a bit from following the discussion. That means it has value.

But I'm not saying which side wins.
hubby11 is offline  
Old 10-29-2009, 11:12 AM
  #108  
Boone & Crockett
 
ipscshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,899
Default

Originally Posted by hubby11

But I'm not saying which side wins.

Are you a politician?
ipscshooter is offline  
Old 10-29-2009, 11:22 AM
  #109  
Nontypical Buck
 
drockw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Henderson, KY
Posts: 1,760
Default

[quote=ipscshooter;3488136]
Originally Posted by drockw

You're arguing a completely different point. I'm noting that it is absurd to say that because a bullet entered at 2500 ft lbs and exited at 2000 ft lbs, that it "only expended 500 ft lbs as it traveled through the deer." That's pure unadulterated BS. It has lost 500 ft lbs on its way through, but, it is expending energy during every microsecond of its travel through the deer. It's simply ridiculous to say that a deer hit in the front should by 2500 ft lbs, and in the rear shoulder by 2000 ft lbs has had less energy "expended in the deer" than one that gets hit in the front shoulder by 2500 ft lbs and 0 ft lbs in the rear shoulder because the bullet "expended all its energy inside the animal" and didn't fully penetrate. A hunting bullet that fully penetrates, and carries its KE all the way through the deer is going to cause more permanent and temporary cavitation on its way through than a bullet that stops half way through. Your apples to oranges comparison using the FMJ bullet kind of proves the point that its not the KE that kills, since the FMJ has the same amount of KE as the soft point. What kills is the damage caused on the way through, which is the result of the interaction between the bullet and the tissue. Try carrying your hypothesis in the other direction, using a 100 gr bullet of light construction designed for varmints, versus a 100 grain bullet designed for deer that fully penetrates. Both enter with the same KE. The varmint bullet expends all of its energy, but, doesn't penetrate very far. The bullet designed for deer holds together and fully penetrates, causing damage all the way through the deer. Which would you rather have?

Once again, the idea of "transferring all the energy inside the deer" i.e. by not fully penetrating, is ridiculous. There is far more energy transferred during a full penetration event.
I was referring to the bullet only losing 500#'s of ITS energy through the process, not how much energy was transferred into the animal.

On the second quoted part, I totally agree with you and thats what I was saying... ITs how the bullet uses its KE that determines which does the most devastation. The one that destroys the most wins. Not the one that gets through by losing the least amount of energy lol
drockw is offline  
Old 10-29-2009, 12:12 PM
  #110  
Nontypical Buck
 
zrexpilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,695
Default

[quote=drockw;3488525]
Originally Posted by ipscshooter
ITs how the bullet uses its KE that determines which does the most devastation. The one that destroys the most wins. Not the one that gets through by losing the least amount of energy lol



Your learning
more copying and pasting



The killing power of a bullet in flight depends entirely upon the average size of the wound it makes in the animal, and upon nothing else. The size of the wound in turn depends upon the size, weight, construction, and shape of the bullet, and the velocity with which it strikes, and upon no other details. ... We frequently see it stated that the killing power of a cartridge depends upon its energy, and tables of the properties of cartridges often give the energy of each. Now energy depends upon the weight of the bullet times its velocity, and on nothing else, and thus can have only a very distant bearing on our subject." (Townsend Whelen, The Hunting Rifle, Stackpole Sons, 1940, pg. 236)

An important fact to remember is that not all energy is "created equal". What this ultimately means is that a kinetic energy value used as a measure or threshold for lethality is practically meaningless. The character of the work done by a certain quantity of kinetic energy will be dependent upon the mass, construction and velocity of the projectile. In other words, 1000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy generated by a slow-moving rock is not as lethal as that of a bullet. Furthermore, the damage actually caused by a lesser amount of kinetic energy may easily exceed that caused by a greater quantity of kinetic energy! Expressed differently, kinetic energy has "quality" as well as "quantity". This is easier to understand in terms of heat energy, which has temperature (degrees F or C) as well as quantity (BTUs or Joules). Kinetic energy is governed by similar laws.
As further evidence of this fact, observe that when terminal ballistic experiments are scaled the velocity is held constant. Kinetic energy, mass and the dimensions are scaled, but velocity is not. In like manner pure water at standard pressure boils at 100 C, regardless of quantity. A small amount of water does not boil at a lower temperature than a larger amount. The heat required to bring a quantity of water to a boil is directly proportional to the mass of the water (just as the kinetic energy is proportional to the volume of displacement by a bullet), but the character of the work done on the water by that heat energy is determined by the temperature it produces. It is velocity, not kinetic energy, which is the quantity of greatest interest in the terminal ballistics of small arms.


The wound channel is the determing factor, not the amount if kinetic energy dumped.
Look at theses wound channel profiles. and youll understand.








zrexpilot is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.