Found this while searching "Load From A Disc" web site to see if they had any new updates yet. I have version 3 which is about 2 years old.

But this sounded interesting, another version of the heavy and slow verses light and fast.

http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/July02.htm

Table 1 showing the 450 Marlin's T.I.# of 39.2 over the 30.06's 19.7 sounds about right. What gets me is in Table 2. It shows a T.I. # of 20 to 40 as being a good choice for Elk, Moose, and Grizzly, which puts the 450 Marlin right in there. But puts "Dangerous thin skined game" such as Lions, needing a 40 to 50 T.I. bullet. Which puts the 450 Marlin out of this class. Sounds to me the Grizzly would be the hader to put down. Question is how much faith does one put in these formulas.

Phil

Don't depend on any of them, ask people who have hunted the animals that you want to hunt what they used and how well it worked. And remember - a 257 Roberts bullet in the brain works a lot better than a 460 Weatherby bullet in the leg. Being able to shoot your rifle accurately from field positions (not sitting at a shooting bench) means a lot more than what caliber you are using.

Taylor's formula isn't bad for it's intended purpose - comparing how long a near miss on an elephant brain shot would knock out an elephant. That's why it's called the Taylor K.O formula - it's just for comparing how long the concussion of a bullet to the skull would knock out an elephant. Pretty useful back before WWII if you were an aspiring Ivory hunter, not much use today for anything as going alone into a herd of elephant to shoot as much of the the biggest ivory as you can just isn't done anymore.

Greyghost - Ditto CmcDermott. The kill formula debates have raged for many decades. In my opinion all of these formulas are a waste of time in the field. Yes, they make for interesting discussion and do provide some basis for comparison, however, there are too many variables encountered in the field (terminal ballistics) to validate any of these formulas.

50 years ago you had virtually no bullet selection. Bullets performed all about the same - miserably. Today, you have a tremendous number of bullets designed to operate at any terminal velocity. In other words it is not just bullet weight, sectional density, and velocity - which was the basis for most of these formulas.

When dangerous game is encountered, caliber, bullet construction, and velocity become much more important. There are certain benchmarks that you should follow when hunting dangerous game. Outside of this, most any modern cartridge with the appropriate bullet can perform well in the field.

Those Taylor formula's are bullshit! If you use that formula, a bowling ball at 3fps is more powerfull than a 300 Weatherby. Which would you rather be hit with? Remember, it's the velocity that kill's!

cMcDermott is right!! Don't depend on any of them! There are people who say you need a minimum of 1000 Ft/Lb. to kill a deer, 1500 for elk, etc. None of this thinking takes into consideration bullet type, diameter, placement, or any of a myriad of other factors which also come into play....There is NO WAY of accurately quantifying how a particular bullet/caliber is going to perform on game. Some reasonable guesses can be made based upon experience, but even these guesses are subject to some real serious exceptions!!

Your all right of course, I was more curious as to why this page thought it was harder to put down a Lion, than a Grizzly. Seems just the opposite to me. But then again I don't think Taylor meant for his formula to be used with Bowling Balls, or Mack Trucks for that mater. When taken in its original concept. I Think he had a much better grasp on things.

Phil

I think the lion verses grizzly bear thing is just the African mystique comming out in some people's thinking. There is absolutely no good reason to think a lion is any harder to kill than a grizzly. I wouldn't go energy alone. It's a combination of energy, bullet design/tissue damage, penetration, and bullet diameter does play and important part of the equation.

This is a see-saw debate that gets visited on a regular basis and few seem to see eye to eye while nearly everyone seems to contribute a good point. Of the many factors involved in aquiring a "clean and effective kill" I would place sufficent energy right up there with skill, an accurate rifle, and a knowledge of the quarrys anatomy/vital organs.

Bullet placement always finds its way into these debates and for good reason, but in my experience sufficent energy is much more reliable than counting on piercing the heart. And then there are those who would argue that you want penetration as opposed to energy. Bullet construction notwithstanding, there can be found a direct correlation between energy and penetration.

The field tests have been conducted for decades, the results have been well documented. All anybody has to do to get a good idea of what is suitable for which is have a glance at some free Winchester or Remington propaganda or read the back of a box of shells. Its really not that big of a mystery.

Some have come up with formulas that include more factors such as how much a bullet may expand but the best information is at www.mindspring.com/~ulfhere/ballistics/wounding.html