RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Now at 8 pages this thread is going no where Fast! More head bangin than good Info.

I've lost track,but a post started somewhere with a question about the best gun or caliber. BTW it all belongs in "Gun Forum" not here.

I'm gonna leave this thread open for now but I'm about 243 nano seconds from lockin it up.

Have a Good Day

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

there is more than a bullet hole there it is a busted open spot you could throw a cat through,if you look to the front of the wound you will see a dark red crack.I an't saying a 243 is a better killer than any other cal. it's just a cal i could use when i was busted up having to shoot one handed,my weapon of choice is a 50 cal muzzle loader loaded with a .451 -200 gr xtp hollowpoint.And your 308 cal is a fine choice as so is the 270, 7 mag or the 30 06 and any thing else that will chunk a piece of lead.Most of the big difference is when your shoot a deer with a mag or 308 or a 30 06 is the bullet goes right through unless you hit shoulder,will a pass through lung shot kill a deer you bet stone dead but when small fast flying bullets hit bone they explode and all the energy is absorbed by the body,and when that happens you also get a kill.I have shot deer with my 270 right through both lungs the bullet goes in one side and out the other and the deer runs a couple hundred yards till it runs out of gas,99.9% of the deer i have shot in the lungs with my 243 don't leave a blood trail thats because they never get to make a trail.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I have never taken much stock in the theory the best round/bullet is the one that will make a "Pass Thru" soley for the good blood trail mentality??

I firmly believe the quickest kill is with a projectile/cal/bullet that will penetrate,expand and release its energy inside the game with No Pass Thru.

I have made clean pass thru's only to have the deer run 100+- yrds - and - even lost a couple to the "Marsh" with huge blood trails. I like to make drop dead shots with drop dead bullets. That's how I carefully choosel my guns and bullets. That's also exactly why I would never try a 500yrd shot with any bullet let alone a 243.

Just my .02

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Having killed over 2000 mammals over 60lb I have come to the conclusion that bullet placement is by far and above the most important factor in this argument & huinting in general. Energy is beyond any fathom of doubt the winner.WHAT THE! yes its true, but,and yes there is always as in life a but.Your average hunter using commercially produced ammunition would have to give the trophy to the v-men . Lets simplify this for uninitiated,say a.243 ,this cartridge being handicapped by its heavier projectiles needing to be taking up more space in the cartridge chamber due to commercial gun design, giving the v-men an advantage.A 60gnhp projectile travelling at 4000fps loses its energy very quickly because it is short & lackes inertia, which slows it down faster also causing its trajectory to be unpredictable out past 200y not to mention wind. A 85 to 100gn on the other hand, if correctly seated out to the lands and worked up to near and just below the first signs of pressure, if using a projectile unlike the nails produced by the factories is a wonder to behold. Unlike me you cannot testfire your projectiles on roos.You dont want it to completely release its energy within a foot & you do not want more than 3 feet.Try some mud,or something containing mainly water.On second thoughts just mail me,nice hunting dudes,bye.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

A 22-250 will zip a bullet, and a 45-70 has the trajectory of a rainbow...but what one is a more suitable elk rifle?
Thre really is no debate here...

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

WELL SAID U 2 ITS ENERGY

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I guess I did get a little off topic here. The debate is whether or not energy kills. I think too many people emphasise on this and the truth of the matter is energy is not what kills. If this were true handguns like a 45 wouldnt kill, it has very low energy. Energy is and equasion. Not relative to what actually happens when bullets encounter tissue. I have seen 22-250's hand loaded with a 55 gr howlowpoint leave massive holes in deer. Much more damage than a 30-06 or .270. would I use it on big game ? no. would I use it on deer ? You bet ya. I would take the 22-250 with the 55 howlow point over a 30-06 or similar caliber for deer. It has no energy but yet leave's massive holes in deer. You have to see one shot by one to know what I'm talking about, big, big, holes.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

you are trying to compare a 243 to a 308? BIGGER is better... zrex you said bigger bullets make bigger wound channels and wound channels is what kills,well the last time i checked the 308 had a way bigger bore (bullet) then your suped up 22 (243) your dont even know what u are talking about. yes a 243 will kill big game if everything is pefect but what a 308 does it gives u more leway incase everthing is not perfect. if u done your research you will figure out that a 243 will never comepare to a 308 or 30-06. one thing is for sure is when i want to go hunting i can take my 308 and hunt almost any animal in the world but all u can hunt with your 243 is deer size game. the 308 is considered one of the best allaround (most consider it the best) calibers and its accuracy is at the top its a standered sniper caliber for military and police officals. SO all that is left to say is that when u have a 308 in your hands when hunting u will have confidence in your head and will make u a better hunter!!!! THE END!!!

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Here we go again.. the bore size is what 1.6 mm bigger Oooooh that doesnt sound way bigger. An expanded bullet would be ten times bigger then that. fact is go back and read my ballistics table. For deer the .243 is better. Its also faster flatter and more accurate than your .308 with the bullet I have chosen. Faster means less time in the air. less time in the air means less time for an animal to move. Less time in the air means a lot. At longer ranges the .243 has more velocity still in it. more velocity means more expansion, more expansion means bigger wound channel. the .243 with the bullet I have chosen is the better of the two, sorry. THE END!!!!

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

jaybird he could hunt rabbits with that 243 of his...id have a hard time takin it for them..The 243 is a peashooter should never be coompard to a 308

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

If one were to handload for the .243 the 107 gr sierra Kicks @$$
Sectional density 2.59
BC .527
In comparison the .30 caliber in 165 gr.
sectional density .248
BC .404

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I was reading a thread on another forum on hunting in Africa. It said that many professional hunters use what is called a TKO, Taylor Knock Out formula for rating cartriges for large and dangerous game.

bullet diameter X bullet weight X velocity / 7000 = TKO rating.

Metro

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

This debate is kind of pointless, since energy is derived from velocity. Kinetic Energy = (1/2)(mass)(velocity)^2. Therefor without velocity you have no energy. These two subjects are directly related, so it is hard to say which does what. When velocity increases so does energy.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Zrex, hate to say it but when you crunch the numbers the .243 looks kinda girly according to the TKO formula and I would certainly listen to hunters that are taking down Cape buffalo, Elephants and Lions.

Metro

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Jeez when did I ever say it was an elephant gun. You guys are getting way off topic.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Double the weight of a bullet and it's energy doubles, double its velocity and its energy quadruples.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

PS those are made up equasions that wont hold water. Means nothing.
(Copied and pasted.)


(The basics of terminal performance, wounding effects and wounding effectiveness are pretty easy for ordinary people to understand, and this creates a conflict of interest for some gun-writers because there really isn't much to write about.

Instead of sticking to simple facts these particular authors would rather delude you with paragraph after paragraph of mystical concepts such as "energy transfer," "neural shock," "Fuller Index," "one-shot stopping power," "Strasbourg Tests," and "street results." Although this stuff makes for interesting and entertaining reading, it's really nothing more than a bunch of sophisticated junk-science they've invented to ensure they have plenty to write about)

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I said I would listen to the advice of someone who is taking down an elephant when trying to judge a cartridge. So, am I to infer that you are saying the TKO is a load of elephant dung?? Just asking as I am no ballistics expert.

Metro

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

There is no such thing as knock down power.

Heres some more copying and pasting.


A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against the shooter and he too would be knocked down. This is simple physics, and has been known for hundreds of years. The amount of energy deposited in the body by a bullet is approximately equivalent to being hit with a baseball. Tissue damage is the only physical link to incapacitation.



Knockdown Power
Muzzle energy impresses humans, but it's not what kills animals.
by David E. Petzal


Back in the late I95Os, my illustrious predecessor Warren Page wrote an article titled “Knock Down Nothing,” in which he spilled the dirty secret that no projectile actually takes an animal off its feet—and that all the slavish attention paid to velocities, bullet weights, and foot-pounds of energy is pretty much wasted.
At the time, I was a high schooler, frying my brain in an effort to memorize all this stuff. I didn’t see how a man who had hunted all over the world and killed more animals than I had dreamed of could say such things, but as I have learned, he was dead (no pun intended) right.

ACTUAL CASE STUDIES
Animals drop because of damage to the brain or the spinal column, which stops signals to the legs; and die when the oxygen in their brains runs out. The bullet’s impact is not the direct cause.

Last fall, I killed two deer with a puny 6.5x55mm handload—a 125-grain bullet at 2750 fps. One fell in its tracks, and the other went one step and dropped. A week later, I killed a deer of roughly the same size with a .300 Jarrett, a cartridge similar to the ferocious .300 Weatherby, and one which shoots a 200-grain bullet at just under 3000 fps. It has exactly twice the muzzle energy of the little 6.5x55. That animal ran for perhaps 60 yards before she went down, in defiance of all that power. A few months earlier, that same rifle and load dumped a 1,500-pound Alaska moose in its tracks. But it didn’t knock the critter off its hooves.

A few years ago I killed a whitetail doe with a .270 that entered the rib cage on the left side and ranged forward to exit the right shoulder, breaking it in the process, and demolishing both lungs and the heart. The bullet almost cut the poor creature in half but did not knock it down. That doe ran for 70 yards.

Good taste constrains me from going on, because good taste is everything to me. I trust that I have made my case.

THE POINT
If you want to hunt big animals, you use a big cartridge that shoots a big bullet. Thick hides, heavy bones, and massive muscles are too much for a small bullet to get through to where it has to do its work. A big bullet will penetrate, but it doesn’t knock anything to the ground.

Similarly, high velocity is useful only because it makes hitting at long range much easier than low velocity. All those thousands of feet per second are not going to sweep any critter off its feet.

(On the other hand, hypervelocity does do some interesting things. I’ve seen tiny 50-grain bullets driven at 4000 fps from a .220 Swift penetrate iron plates that 180-grain .30-caliber game bullets couldn’t punch through.)

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I should elaborate when I say the .243 seemed like a girly cartidge. I crunched the numbers according to a certain yardage, I can't remember if it was 100 or 200 yards, with a .243, .308 and a the TKO numbers were .243= 8.57 .308=17.40

I would expect the .243 to be a flatter shooter but thats what puttin in time on the range is for, I know where my .308 will hit at 150 yards and can adjust accordingly.

Metro...

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Wow, I just crunched the numbers for my .30-.30 and it looks like it beats out the .243 at 200 yards too! Maybe you oughta hand that .243 down to your daughter.

Metro

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Buwahahahahahahaha ! theres a sucka born everyday. If that alone doesnt tell you TKO # are a load of crap then nothing will enlighten you.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Using federal 100 gr sierras' BT

The.243's velocity at 400yds is the same as the .30-30's at the muzzle . The .243 energy at 500yds is the same as the 30-30's at 200 yds.
ya I'd say your TKO#'s are bunk.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

I am confused are you debating the importance of velocity vs. weight or velocity vs. energy?

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Neither really. just showing that velocity is more of the deciding factor in energy, not bullet weight. But like I said before energy isnt what kills.
I believe that velocity has more to do with killing than energy does. Thats what this debate was about. I wanted people to try and prove to me that energy is what kills. There's a lot of people that buy into the energy myth. Which is bunk.
Theres no such thing as knock down power. The law of physics prove it. With an action theres and opposite and equal reaction. So to knock something down with power it would require the shootoer to be knocked backwards with equall force. Issac Newton proved this long ago.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

Like I said, the TKO rating comes from big game hunters that take down dangerous game, not me. I'm sure the .243 does just fine on a deer when placed right but when the chips are down and a dangerous animal is within a hundred yards and could possibly charge I'd rather have the bigger heavier round. I did'nt mean to take this topic off to big, dangerous African game it just came up when reading about the TKO and I thought the formula was interesting.

Metro

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

--------------------------------------------------------
how much velocity that bow got??[8D]

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

more than it does in energy, 50 lbs energy and 270 fps velocity. do you think the energy pushed it way through ? or do you think its velocity punched its way through ? Velocity baby! velocity. And the wound channel killed it not the energy. ha ha.

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

thats it zrex-you seem to have all the answers but wont listen to anyone else-it seems you have much to say about nothing-later i think i i will just block you from now on- because there is no debating you- are you bi-polar or something? you have talked in circles enough for me ---computer---block stop zrex--smell ya later

RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)
 

BROWNING.308- wow you make it sound that your 308 is the best gun out their. heck it isn't even the best non magnium 30 caliber rifle. but if you think it is so great that is good for you.

however i never said that the 243 is the best either.

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.