RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

There is no debate here...only confusion about what numbers APPEAR to mean.

A devastating wound channel doesn't help if it only penetrates deep enough to make wide but shallow crater...no matter how devastated the flesh of that shallow crater.

Energy at the muzzle doesn't necessarily corelate to energy at the animals vitals.......
This ain't rocket science...just a little math and a lot of first hand post-mortems will help you more that all the ballistics tables in the world.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

The TKO tables are a way to compare one round to another. There is nothing Bunk about it. Bullets kill by creating tissue and bone and muscle damage along with blood loss. Bullet weight, bullet velocity and sectional density combine to make the kill. Its been an age old debate on which kills better. Fast light bullets or slow heavy bullets. It makes no difference as long as the bullet does its damage. A 257 Weatherby and a 45-70 Government will both kill a deer dead. Period. A lot of dead game animals will never no the difference. In the end its shot placement every time. Lets look at the examples. The 257 Weatherby would be considered to kill with velocity. The 45-70 kills with bullet size and mass. But how about the 7x57 mauser or 7mm-08. They have niether high velocity nor heavy massive bullets. However they may be the best killer of medium size game that we have.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Now you're talkin'........ I love those medium weight, high BC, medium velocity rounds..easy to shoot and hold flinch free (for deer anyway)

I fully agree that the placement is critical...and the bullet chosen must do a decent job of matching the task...but the speed must match the weight and construction of the projectile for the mass and build of the animal.......
Everybody knows what kils out of thier own guns for the game they choose to hunt. And those that don't shouldn't be swayed by tables unless they've studied them in relation to thier own weapons that they also learn to know and understand.
I err on the side of middle of the road for the task at hand, and let the placement of the bullet cover the rest. Some of my best hunting decisions were the shots I didn't take. The right "wound channel" path didn't present itself.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

ZREX u said bigger bullits make bigger wound paths and woundpaths are what kill deer and im afraid my 308 has a bigger bullit.....id take and .30 cal rifle over a 243 any day id like u to shoot a dangerous animal with ur peashooter

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Ahhhh little grass hoppa, where you been ? Maybe you should try a .243, after all I havent ever had an animal get back up after being shot by one. Buwahahahaha.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

i didnt want to shoot the three does that were standing behind it hadda aim a little low so i woulnt get 4 with one shot...that type of energy will do er there grandpa

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Haven't read the whole thing, just responding to post #1, 12 pages? sorry, a bit much.....

"Killing power" has many components: shock, energy, penetration, expansion, "momentum" (per Ackley), and TKO. Anyone who picks just one aspect of the overall equation and chooses to pretend the others do not exist, exposes his ignorance of the equation as a whole, IMHO.

BTW, deer kill pretty easily, so attempting to frame the entire discussion in terms of merely "dumping deer" is a pretty weak benchmark right from the get go.

At a personal level, I find nothing wrong with fast bullets (as long as they can "hold together") I just like BIG fast bullets; recoil --- no particularly big deal!

Good Luck and Good Hunting

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

ELKampMaster,
You beat me to the point. Start talking about animals that require a heavy solid bullet just to get to the vitals, and this debate would become a whole lot more interesting. It might even be solved.

C. Davis

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I really agree with you here. I think bigger bullets really need to be faster. Thats why 7 mags and 300 mags are so much more devastating than say a 30-06 or 308 The 300 is using the same exact bullet as the -06 and .308 but at a much faster velocity.


The faster the bullet the more expansion, the bigger the expansion the bigger the wound channel the bigger the wound channel the faster it kills. heres a pic on velocity and expansion.

No mention of energy when showing the rates of expansion.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

zrex,

Choose the parts you like and ignore the rest if you so choose, I stand by parts of the same post you chose not to address....

and
BTW, the bullet on the far right is "only" doing 2700 fps so apparently did NOT need hypervelocity to function well....

Good luck with your deer hunting.