I was just thinking of this the other day and I came to the conclusion that most hunters are to much concerned about foot-pounds of energy instead of being concerned about bullet performance. I believe that the fault of all of this is due to gun magazines that try to push us compulsive gun buyers to try out and get the latest hyper velocity magnums that can kill a moose at 600 yards... I used to be like that, a real velocity freak, trying to push the X-bullets or equivalent bullet to the maximum speed possible out of that barrel... that is until I started reading posts about Saeed, Ray Atkinson and other very knowledgeable people on this forum that have way more hunting experience than I have. I also analyzed a document about bullet penetration and concluded that either soft nosed premiums and homogenous bullets have an optimum impact speed. Seems that bonded soft points penetrate better at moderate velocities since more speed will generate a bigger mushroom, more drag, and less penetration. Regarding homogeneous bullets like the X and Failsafes, penetration is pretty much the same either at the lower end of the spectrum or at the higher and the of spectrum. What I noticed was that at the higher speeds, petals would separate. It seems that the X bullets perform the best in a .375 at around 2700fps for the 270gr and 2500-2600fps for the 300gr. It seems to be H&H velocities to me... I came to the conclusion that the best performance would come from an X-bullet that would expand to its maximum diameter without losing petals and if possible produce two holes. So if you push them to slow these bullets will not expand, and if you push them to fast they will lose their petals. I truly believe that we should scrap the foot-pounds of energy scale to compare cartridges and replace it with something more down to earth, like the chances of getting an exit hole on the intended game at a range of let say 100 yards. So instead of having --- this bullet generates so much energy at the muzzle, something like this bullet will exit a cape buffalo on a broadside shot on 99% of the time at 50 yards. People would be more prone in buying the right ammo for the intended hunt instead of making their choices on pure muzzle energy.

What do you guys think?... and no I didn't smoke anything

Regards,

Enigma

P.S. Blood loss kills animals, not FPE!!!

Foot pounds, not pounds foot.

Anyway, I don't want a bullet to exit a Cape Buffalo. I would much rather have it expend all energy in th animal and end up against the skin on the far side.

I also think Barnes X Bullets Suck.

Sorry to be argumentive. Well, not really, but Forrest maybe reading this.

Actually it doesn't matter when it is expressed as ft-lb or lb-ft, it is just convention. Actually it is foot-pounds (force), but whatever.

What is important is that your hypothesis is baloney!! The three important ingredients are penetration, energy, and placement. You can't really just pick one. Well, you just can't pick one and stay alive when facing DG!

Gun writers don't use energy rather than bullet performance as a criteria because they think energy is more important. They use it because it is simple to calculate (even gun writers can do the multiplication) and it makes an abstraction of all the real world criteria that are so messy to discuss, like bullet construction. If they do talk about bullet construction, indicating any superiority of one over another, they will be roundly criticized for not being scientific, using anecdoctal data, being paid off by the bullet manufacturer, ad nauseum.

FPE is mostly hype, kind of like the glossy stocks on Brownings and the higher end Weatherbys.

My preference is full penetration and an exit hole. Total wound channel volume is important to establishing rapid blood loss. The exit hole makes it easier to track the animal since not all of them drop in their tracks.

The kinetic energy is a measure of the bullets ability to do work.

Problem is how the work is done.

For example we could have a very large bullet at 1000 f/s and a very light bullet at 5000 f/s and with the same energy, that is capacity to do work.

If we fired either gun into some house bricks lined up the little bullet at 5000 f/s might turn the first brick into talcolm powder but the big bullet my bust a few bricks but each brick would not be turned into talcom powder. But the big bullet has killed more bricks.

Of course if we had some armour piercing type bullet for the little bullet then it might "kill" several bricks but not turn any of the bricks into talcom powder

If we had the correct bullet then a 30/378 Wby with close to 5000 ft lbs of energy would equal the killing power of a 470 Nitro on buffalo since it would have the same capacity to do work.

Think of it this way. The energy is the capability, like the power of an engine. The bullets are like the gear ratios.

If you out a 900 HP Formula 1 engine in a big Kenworth it would not be very good. But change the gears in the truck so all the ratios were about 10 times lower then Formula 1 engine would leave the 400 HP diesel Kenworth for dead.

Mike

quote:

The exit hole makes it easier to track the animal since not all of them drop in their tracks.

Really? When did that start?

I personally don't think FPE means much of anything in the death of an animal. It is a way of comparing one round to another but it gives people the false impression that a 300 Whiz-Bang with a 150 BT might be as good for really big game as the 375 with a 300gr. premium bullet. I wouldn't miss FPE in the magazines and loading manuals if they just eliminated it all together.

Mark

Concerning Barnes X bullets; they do not have to be pushed to the limits in order for them to work effectively. I load 225 BX in my 35 Whelen at a muzzle speed of 2650fps. This is surely not a high speed number and they are really a great bullet and performed well for me in a variety of plains game situations.

I have seen recoved bullets from the 375 H&H recovered from the off side of a buffalo, they were perfect! I beleive, from what I have seen, the Failsafes are a bit harder then the Barnes bullets and therefore must be pushed a little faster to get them to expand.

A dependable bullet is just that, regardless of the construction or who makes it. It must stick together, expand to a good degree and penetrate deeply.

Weather they are A-frames, Trophy Bonded, Nosler Partitions, Woodlieghs, etc. Good bullets are ones you have gained confidence in. The experienced hunters have seen numerous bullets perform in different fashions and their conclusions on what they see should have merit. I take their thoughts into consideration when making choices concerning my own hunting.

Though hunting is Africa is not cheap, it is within reach of many people and using a quality bullet is cheap insurance that once you hit an animal in the right place, it will expire in a short time.

BigBullet

Can someone explain the definition of FT-LB of energy. Is it rotational energy? Is it torque? For example, take 5000 ft-lb of energy... does that mean the bullet will generate 5000 pounds of energy in every feet it travels?

Enigma

If the bullet when it leaves the barrel has 5000 ft-lb of energy, it is equivalent to the work required in moving a 5000 lb weight a distance of one foot.

Regardless of what evil others may espouse , big, dangerous game has always been succeptable to energy levels in the 5000 ft-lb range. If you belive otherwise, you're smokin' the wrong stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Enigma:
Can someone explain the definition of FT-LB of energy. Is it rotational energy? Is it torque? For example, take 5000 ft-lb of energy... does that mean the bullet will generate 5000 pounds of energy in every feet it travels?

Enigma

Energy is calculated as 1/2 x mass x velocity x velocity, and the units are foot-pounds.

Some writers in the past said you need 1000 ft lbs to kill a deer, 2000 ft lbs to kill an elk, and 4000+ ft lbs to kill a cape buffalo. Of course that is all horse manure, but it is one way of comparing relative power of different cartridges.

Momentum (mass x velocity) is another yardstick that can be used.

Or A-Square's shock power index (energy divided by bullet frontal area if I recall correctly)

Or the Taylor knockout formula.

Etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Enigma:
Can someone explain the definition of FT-LB of energy.

1 ft-lb = 1.36 joule = 3.78 *10^-7 kWatt-hour = 0.00129 Btu = 0.325 cal

All I wanted to express in my post is that the (inexperienced reloader or hunter) places to much importance in that magic ft-lb label... We often try to push a bullet as fast as we can to get that extra ft-lb when in the end it might reduce the performance of the bullet. By reduced performance I mean less precision and reduced penetration past a certain velocity. Some will agree, some will disagree... oh well

Enigma

I gave up giving a hoot about energy a long time ago. It all has to do with "caliber and bullet weight"... Elmer Keith was saying it 60+ years ago and somehow people today seem to be just "rediscovering" that concept now. When in reality guys like Elmer and John Taylor were saying it decades ago. Elmer warned us the high velocity thing was deceiving and not a reliable killer on game. He preferred at least .33 caliber and up for deer and elk and even larger bores as we all know from his writings.

Get both volumes of Elmer Keith's "Gun Notes" and you'll find them to be like encyclopedias of shooting/loading/hunting info. Elmer forgot more than nearly anyone alive today ever knew about these things.

It appears that 1900-2300 fps is the optimum velocity for most big/heavy bullets on larger game... Too high a velicoty becomes counterproductive in reality.