Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > General Hunting Forums > Whitetail Deer Hunting
 Velocity verses Energy. (the debate) >

Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)

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.

Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)

Old 12-08-2004, 01:51 PM
  #1  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
zrexpilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,695
Default Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)

Care to debate on this issue ?


Velocity is what kills fast and clean not energy. Energy is not knockdown power. Theres no such thing as knock down power. Hydrosatic shock is what kills fast, and this derived from velocity. So if you knock a deer on his @$$ it was from velocity not energy.

(copy and pasted)

( Speed (muzzle velocity) is the most important factor; we learn from physics that kinetic energy, i.e., destructive power, increases arithmetically with mass, but geometrically with velocity. Thus you have more to fear from a rifle than from a handgun. Slow, small caliber bullets, and knives, too, for that matter, rarely kill anybody immediately, unless they sever a major artery or pierce the brain, and even then death often takes several minutes. In most such cases, death results from blood loss, brain damage, or (in long drawn-out cases) from infections such as gangrene resulting from contaminants borne into the body by the bullet or knife. An abdominal wound can result in mortal infection from fecal matter seeping out of the intestines.

Large bullets, and small bullets that travel very fast, such as those from an M-16 rifle, can kill almost instantly, mainly by reducing the region of impact literally to hamburger. They also generate something known as "hydrostatic shock." The body is composed largely of water and as such may be viewed as a hydraulic system. Liquid being noncompressible, the shock caused by the high-velocity entry of a large projectile (don't you love this technobabble?) is transmitted throughout the body, causing widespread organ damage and disruption of nervous functions. Even a wound to an arm or leg can be fatal in some instances.

There are numerous variations on the above, most which are undoubtedly familiar to readers of detective stories. Hollow-nosed bullets, for instance, flatten on impact and bulldoze their way through the body, making death almost certain, since the massive damage they cause is virtually irreparable. )


I aggree with this. But theres also more to it than just that. Wound channels are another issue. Bigger bullets leave bigger holes. (wound channel). more to follow
zrexpilot is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 03:14 PM
  #2  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: summerville sc USA
Posts: 76
Default RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)

I'd rather be slapped by a fast skinny woman than be sat on by a big 'ol fat slow moving woman.

Velocity may sting a litle but the energy/knock down of that fat woman will squish your guts out your dang ears!!


It's hard to argue with reason.
rem7400 2 is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 03:38 PM
  #3  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 380
Default RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)

ORIGINAL: rem7400 2

I'd rather be slapped by a fast skinny woman than be sat on by a big 'ol fat slow moving woman.

Velocity may sting a litle but the energy/knock down of that fat woman will squish your guts out your dang ears!!


It's hard to argue with reason.
Would you rather somebody hit you with their whole body slowly, or punch you in the face?

Entirely different 'reason.'
FL/GA Hunter is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 03:41 PM
  #4  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Longwood FL
Posts: 143
Default RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. A fast moving bullet generates a larger diameter of "hamburger" because of greater shock(Figure A). But a heaver but slower bullet will have a smaller diameter of "hamburger" (Figure B). Now with that said if both bullets go clean thru then yes I can see a faster bullet doing more damage. If both bullets did no go through then the lighter bullet would stop faster (Figure A) and the heaver bullet with more inertia would go further (Figure B) Then it looks like we are stuck with the old debate of length over girth. Maybe someone will do the math and come up with the a differnce in "hamburger" voulume.

SeaHunter is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 03:43 PM
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location:
Posts: 74
Default RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)

Wait can't rimfire .22 or .17s have similar velocities to a 12ga slug? I wouldn't consider a rimfire for deer, but I do use slugs. I think a shotgun slug is more suitable due to its energy -- not velocity.
Colin3 is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 03:56 PM
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 654
Default RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)

a fast moving bullet may knock them down but it also may not travel far enough into the animal to kill it.


if you where going to hunt large thick skined game animals such as brown bear would you use a 300 win mag with 110 gr. hollow points or with 220 gr. slow moving bullet that will go right through the bear?
killer243 is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 04:06 PM
  #7  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
zrexpilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,695
Default RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)

I dunno, but that why I started this debate.
A big hangun like a 45 and a 40 SW have around 375 lbs enegry at 25 yds but have around 1000 fps in velocity. Pretty lame on energy but they will definatley kill you pretty darn fast.
zrexpilot is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 04:16 PM
  #8  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
zrexpilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,695
Default RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)

I know this, a heavier bullet does not mean you will have more energy. energy is derived from velocity. You can double the weight of a bullet and it will double your energy, but double the velocity and will quadruple the energy.
zrexpilot is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 04:20 PM
  #9  
Nontypical Buck
 
johnch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NW Ohio , 5 min from Ottawa National / Magee Marsh
Posts: 2,051
Default RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)

You left out the third side of the debate , bore diamiter or bullet frontal area.
IMO a fast small cal will not kill any better than my slow large cal.
I hunt with a 45/70 rifle and a 44 mag revolver and both kill better than the velocity or energy says they should.
johnch is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 04:25 PM
  #10  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
zrexpilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,695
Default RE: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)

ORIGINAL: johnch

You left out the third side of the debate , bore diamiter or bullet frontal area.
IMO a fast small cal will not kill any better than my slow large cal.
I hunt with a 45/70 rifle and a 44 mag revolver and both kill better than the velocity or energy says they should.
No, I spoke of this on the opening thread (wound channell) which defantley is part of this debate. Thats why I say energy is not what kills.
Like I said above a colt 45 has only 375lb energy at 25 yds.
zrexpilot is offline  

Quick Reply: Velocity verses Energy. (the debate)


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

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.