Good results with the .375 300gr CEB VLD bullet (0.75 bc) from my .375 H&H Magnum -

http://forums.accuratereloadin...2511043/m/3051064152

Only downside - has to be single loaded.

Theory without facts is fantasy. Facts w/o theory is chaos. That might've been the best thing I learned from a paid education.

Cartridge debates are academic without taking in to account biology. Laws of biological science are far more important than cartridge nuances.

Nothing living remains in that condition w/o topside oxygenated blood flow. Put any suitable bullet into the largest bull elk's heart and/or lungs, and it'll have seconds of life remaining before it hits dirt. I've cited bull elk because it's alleged to be the toughest big game animal in North America.

Straight outta diapers, I was reading hunting magazines. My first big game rife was a Model 700 .270 Win. Old timers advised me to go that route. The '06 was, "...too much gun for a young hunter." I still have that rifle. It kills Rocky Mountain mule deer very dead. It'll still shoot .25" @ a hundred. I have no regrets.

When I commenced to get serious about killing Rocky Mountain bull elk, I bought a 7MM Rem Mag, the then definitive elk cartridge. It will kill very dead huge bulls. But then I took to thinkin', which I shoulda done before I bought a 10 pound Sako. My .270 Win would have killed bulls just as dead.

The .300 Win Mag is an incredible cartridge. But it won't kill big game any deader than the '06. Might just be that a computer analysis would reveal the .308 Win in a lightweight rifle to be the ideal North American big game setup.

I could hunt everything in North America with a lightweight bolt action .280 Rem and wouldn't need another rifle. There's magic in .284 caliber bullets sectional densities. But I ain't springing for another big game rifle. From here on out, everything I hunt, including bull elk, I'll hunt with my two .270 Win rifles.

EMP3,

I couldn't agree more. I personally find the comparison of energy close to laughable and that is the underlying theme for most of my posts. You can always find a bigger and more powerful cartridge. You can always bias the analysis.

Is the there some relationship between energy delivered on target and the amount of tissue damage that leads to loss of oxygenated blood and the resulting death? sure there is.

Is the difference in tissue damage given an increase in energy delivered going to a) be proportional to the increase in energy delivered and/or b) lead to any consistent, measurable, or meaningful difference in game reaction given equal shot placement? The answer is No

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:

Is the difference in tissue damage given an increase in energy delivered a) going to be proportional to the increase energy delivered and/or b) lead to any consistent, measurable, or meaningful difference in reactions between equal shot placement?

Not quite following this. A recent field experience example:

.375 300gr AB impacted Big Bull Moose shoulder broadside at speed noted. Breached shoulder bone, severed the spinal chord and lodged in the far shoulder. Piled up right there stone dead. Recovered bullet weight is 209gr or 70% weight retention.

At some lower impact speed and therefore lower energy level wouldn't the bullet have insufficient energy to be instantly lethal as it was in this case?

Good meat bullet btw at that relatively low impact speed. No bloodshot loss. At higher impact speed I've seen what a mess can be made.

The shorter answer is not until the energy is reduced so far that the resultant reduction in tissue damage is meaningfully less.

Let's take your example and expanded on it.

I launch that 375 300 grain AB at 4 different muzzle velocities (2600, 2500, 2400, & 2300) and we have 4 theoretically equal moose and we hit the moose in exactly the same spot with each of the bullets.

First bullet impacts @ 2430 and delivers 3938 ft lbs. The bullet breaks near shoulder, severs spinal column, breaks off shoulder and exits the hide. Animal collapses instantly when the spinal column is severed.

Second bullet impacts @ 2335 and delivers 3633 ft lbs. The bullet breaks near shoulder, severs spinal column, breaks off shoulder and stays under the hide. Animal collapses instantly when the spinal column is severed.

Third bullet impacts @ 2239 and delivers 3339 ft lbs. The bullet breaks near shoulder, severs spinal column, but stops against off shoulder blade on the interior side. Animal collapses instantly when the spinal column is severed.

Fourth bullet impacts @ 2181 and delivers 3170 ft lbs. The bullet breaks near shoulder, severs spinal column but stays lodge in the vertebrae on the far side of the spinal column. Animal collapses instantly when the spinal column is severed.

A difference of over 750 ft lbs top to bottom (24+%) exact same result.

I break the moose spine with a 270 win 150 gran bullet launched at 2900 and hit at 250 yards delivered energy 1871 ft lbs. Same result with 2000 ft lbs less energy.

The only difference would be the milliseconds of elapsed time that the slower bullets took to breach the skin and sever the spinal.

You can apply the same to heart shots. Heart shots induce massive bleeding. Most bullets expand to about a ~200% of original diameter given appropriate impact velocity. Let's say I launch a 150 grain barnes out of a 270 Win @ 2900 and 175 grain barnes out of the 30-06 @ 2825 because I used Hodgdon's Superperfomance.

Let's say range is 250 yards. One will expand to .554 and the other will expand to .616 a difference of 62/1000. Impact velocity for the 270 is 2379 with 1871 ft lbs of energy. The 30-06 is 2423 and 2282 ft lbs, a difference of 22% in ft lbs delivered.

Both those bullets are perfect heart shots on are theoretical separate deer and they both completely penetrate the heart.

One deer has a theoretical 11% larger hole in its heart and received 22% more energy.

What do we expect? That the deer shot by the 270 runs 36 yards but the deer hit by the 30-06 runs only 30? or the 270 deer ran 72 yards but the 30-06 deer ran only 60 and do we even care?

If you conducted that test 10 times there would be no consistency in the deer that ran farther and of the 20 deer shot in the side by side 10 tests the results would be all over the place. Some deer would collapse on the spot, some would stumble 10 steps and collapse, some would run 25 yards and collapse, some would run 50 yards and collapse and there would be no ryhme or reason to which deer did what based on what bullet they were struck with.

You could use a 300 Win Mag instead of a 30-06 and you would get the same random responses from heart shot deer.

You see double long shot elk (and other animals) where the lungs are "liquefied". Let's just say that the minimum is X amount of bullet fragments @ Y velocity delivering Z amount of energy to liquefy an elks lungs and that equals a 338 WM shooting a 225 AB and hitting the target at 100 yards at 2660 fps delivering 3933 ft lbs. If we hit it with 260 AB out of a 375 Ruger at 25 yards 2854 impact velocity and 4702 ft lbs an increase of 769 ft lbs and 120% of this theoretical required amount. Do we think 1 elk is going to die 20% faster than the other?

The above is what is meant by:

"Is the difference in tissue damage given an increase in energy delivered a) going to be proportional to the increase energy delivered and/or b) lead to any consistent, measurable, or meaningful difference in reactions between equal shot placement? The answer is NO"

And as the .375 300gr AB bullet impact speed on the broadside Big Bull Moose shoulder drops lower and lower - with less and less energy - what would eventually happen?

Well of course at some point impact velocity becomes so low that both inadequate penetration and inadequate tissue damage occurs.

By the way, thank you for asking that question that has such an obvious answer because you just proved the point that:

Assuming good shot placement - it is more about adequate impact velocity, bullet construction, and adequate bullet weight to achieve penetration to create sufficient tissue damage to incapacitate; then it is about this cartridge/bullet weight/velocity combination generates 15, 20, 25, 30, or 40% more energy than another.

Required minimum impact velocities depending on bullet construction range between 1300 and ~2000 fps and actual impact velocities are typically between 1800 and 2900 fps.

You aren't going to find any consistent pattern of animals "dying quicker" because you hit them with 2000 ft lbs of energy vs. 3000 ft lbs of energy in the vitals. Theoretically should they "die quicker"? Sure, in the real world no.

A long range shooter who studied and did his homework can beat the socks off a once or twice a year hunter who doesn't shoot much and who grabs ole betsy and heads for the game fields..Ive seen the same with archery, those that learn to shoot do a lot better than those that don't..Any of these people can wound or kill, learning the game makes a world of differenct..

I hunt a lot, I shoot a hell of a lot, I prefer to get as close as possible, but I will take a 400 yard shot if condition dictate or even a 500 under rare circumstances..circumstances is the key word with me..

I wish Id taken up LR shooting years ago..sounds like fun..but its not for everyone and Ive seen some broken legs over the years, but in all fairness Ive seen broken legs out of a Texas blind at 100 yards with big bore guns and huge LR scopes..

It all about the nut behind the stock.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:

...Animal collapses instantly when the spinal column is severed.

I break the moose spine with a 270 win 150 gran bullet launched at 2900 and hit at 250 yards delivered energy 1871 ft lbs. Same result with 2000 ft lbs less energy.

You've actually done this with a 270 and have the recovered bullet to show us as in my example with my 375?

Mike - - A very enlightening thread. I load some long, skinny 160 bullets to 3100 fps in my 7mm Remington Magnum. On a good day, with a good rest, I might take a shot at 400 yards or a little more. But I might just get a 150 yards closer.

I worry less about hitting the animal and more about what will happen AFTER the shot. The longer the range, the more variables come into play. I like to try to limit the things that might not go as planned/hoped for.

416,

No, it was a figure of speech and that was pretty clear given the numerous examples that preceded it.

If you don't believe that example, here is an easier one.

A .264 130 grain TSX with muzzle velocity 2800 fps from a 260 Rem. Shot at the same theoretical moose @ 50 yards delivers 2065 ft lbs and the bullet severs the spine. Same result, moose instantly collapses and dies. Energy delivered is 2065 ft lbs. 1458 lbs less than your 2300 fps 300 grn AB.

If you don't believe the above scenario can happen, that's ok. You also don't need to waste your time responding because you have achieved the status of a select few. It's called the ignore list.

Alec,

I would check the specs for minimum impact velocity for that particular bullet and run the ballistics calcs for that load for your rifle.

Add about 10% to the minimum impact velocity and use that as your effective range.

Just FYI - Barnes minimum impact velocities are caliber and weight specific.

Any bullet that enters any animal with enough energy.

To destroy enough tissue to kill the animal is all that is needed.

That is all hugely variable depending on every factor you could plug into the situation.

Back to the original question when the velocity of the 300 mag equals the velocity of the 06.

Any where along the flight path with the same bullet.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:

A .264 130 grain TSX with muzzle velocity 2800 fps from a 260 Rem. Shot at the same theoretical moose @ 50 yards delivers 2065 ft lbs and the bullet severs the spine. Same result, moose instantly collapses and dies. Energy delivered is 2065 ft lbs. 1458 lbs less than your 2300 fps 300 grn AB.

Got any more to share?

This entire discussion appears to me to be missing the true measure of magnum cartridges, that is, the ability to shoot heavier bullets at the same or similar velocities that non magnum cartridges shoot lighter bullets.

The argument being that with the heaver bullet moving at a similar speed, the additional energy gives the shooter an edge for performance on an animal in certain less than ideal conditions.

For instance, the ability to push that projectile into the same vital organ / CNS position from a less than optimal angle.

For instance, one can kill a cape buffalo with a 30-06 IF one has the optimal angle and time to place the bullet perfectly. But what if your prized bull is showing you his south end as he makes his northerly escape, maybe after the first shot didn't produce the drop right there result you wanted. Having a magnum cartridge pushing a heaver bullet is more likely to reach the vitals in that event.

Yeah, I used a buff as the example, but an elk is a damed tough animal to try and track down if the first shot doesn't go exactly as planned. Can I kill one with a 25-06? Yep. If my shot doesn't take him perfectly, I'd rather have my 300 H&H pushing a 220 gr or better, my 340 WBY pushing a 250 for follow up.

Just my 2 cents. YMMV

What happens when you remove the bench rest from this scenario, resting on a rock or on the side of a tree or can it even be done? Has anyone compared the field rest shooting to the matts or bench rest, reading wind,distance and add the wiggle? An honest question, not playing games with you..I know under field conditions I shoot better with a low power scope than one that magnifies my wiggle and I grab at the trigger as the cross hairs float by the animal..

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
This entire discussion appears to me to be missing the true measure of magnum cartridges, that is, the ability to shoot heavier bullets at the same or similar velocities that non magnum cartridges shoot lighter bullets.

The argument being that with the heaver bullet moving at a similar speed, the additional energy gives the shooter an edge for performance on an animal in certain less than ideal conditions.

For instance, the ability to push that projectile into the same vital organ / CNS position from a less than optimal angle.

For instance, one can kill a cape buffalo with a 30-06 IF one has the optimal angle and time to place the bullet perfectly. But what if your prized bull is showing you his south end as he makes his northerly escape, maybe after the first shot didn't produce the drop right there result you wanted. Having a magnum cartridge pushing a heaver bullet is more likely to reach the vitals in that event.

Yeah, I used a buff as the example, but an elk is a damed tough animal to try and track down if the first shot doesn't go exactly as planned. Can I kill one with a 25-06? Yep. If my shot doesn't take him perfectly, I'd rather have my 300 H&H pushing a 220 gr or better, my 340 WBY pushing a 250 for follow up.

Just my 2 cents. YMMV

+1

That’s also the reason I prefer using a 300 H&H or a 375 with Barnes bullets even on small game.

Sometimes you only get one shot at a very bad angle and I have full confidence using my combo above I can drive that bullet into the vitals from any angle.

But it is not just "energy".

It really is the combination of impact velocity, bullet weight, shape and construction that allows for penetration which causes for tissue damage.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
But it is not just "energy".

It really is the combination of impact velocity, bullet weight, shape and construction that allows for penetration which causes for tissue damage.

All things being equal however, same bullet construction, shape, and caliber, traveling at the same velocity, but with one being heavier than the other, (hence being pushed at the same velocity via the magnum loading), that heavier bullet is going to penetrate better.

For instance, a 150gr TSX out of a 308 Win at 2850 fps vs a 200gr TSX out of a 300 H&H Mag at 2800 fps. Same basic shape other than length, the heavier bullet has a higher Sectional Density, better ballistic coefficient, etc. The heavier bullet has more energy and penetration over the lighter bullet.

Will the lighter load get the job done. Probably so. In all the same conditions the heavier bullet will? Don't know with 100% confidence, but it gives me enough confidence to justify carrying the magnum under certain hunting conditions. Say for instance, a caribou hunt in an area where a chance encounter with a grizzly is possible, or even on license? Which do you choose? I'll take the 300. Or better yet, a 340 Wby!

Alf,

That has to be one of the most illogical or off-the-wall replies I have ever seen anyone make.

An ounce of common sense would know that the combination of impact velocity, bullet weight, shape and construction does effect penetration and a bullet that penetrates 8 inches causes more tissue damage to the total animal than a bullet that penetrates 3 inches. Do you recall your own silly post where you showed a knife taped to a rifle stock to argue about the failings of sectional density as a proxy for penetration?

and,

anyone who had bothered to read any of the preceding posts would know that is what I was referring to; i.e., getting to/being able to damage vital tissues and that is the effect that one is attempting to achieve.

If the parsing of words like "allows" vs. "effects" or a focus on a poster's lack of repeating everything they have already posted is entertaining to you, I hope you got a chuckle out of the pedantic physics drivel.

Similar to other physics related responses, they are often 100% technically correct but irrelevant, off-point, and/or useless.

Like the college professor who when asked by the guy floating over campus in a hot air balloon - "Where am I?" pulls out a laser ranger finder and replies in an emphatic and condescending tone "103 ft above the ground, in a basket made of natural fibers, suspended under a hot air balloon."

Perhaps you can tell us whether it was your application of your knowledge of physics or your common sense that led you to use a tracker/scout's shoulder for a standing rest when shooting a hand-rifle (i.e. contender like firearm) at a game animal and the subsequent muzzle blast caused him intense discomfort and scorched his shirt collar.

Did you scientifically examine any damage done to the tracker/scout's face, head, neck, and hearing and record it? did you validate any of that by doing the same with ballistic soap? or did you just use his refusal to ever let you do it again as empirical evidence that he was injured?

I would put a link to the post but I believe you deleted it.

Mike:
To the contrary, I am trying very hard to be logical about the subject.

I’ll put it to you this way.

What if our “bullet” was not symmetrical, not spin stabilized, had no Construction, no specific shape, just a random irregular shape........ say a piece of gravel on a road in Afghanistan or perhaps a hunting arrow ?

It’s “fired” at a dismounted soldier or civilian at a velocity of up to 11,000 FPS driven by a EID which is made of some unexploded US ordinance..... now our propellant is no longer a low order explosive but a high order explosive.

If we don’t like the human target lets assume a civilian using a donkey cart and the donkey gets hit by our flying stone.

In the case of the hunting arrow fired at say a deer , here mass is high velocity low.

This random stone is no different than a symmetrical spin stabilized bullet fired from a gun.

How would we argue the merits of various stones in this scenario as to their potential to do harm or to kill ?

The principles of the process have to sound because if its not the argument fails.


The stone has mass and it has velocity
Thus it has kinetic energy albeit massive kinetic energy at impact ! Sectional density is rather poor so they loose energy very quickly in air or target. This incidentally is quite typical of missiles generated by say fragmentation grenades, their missiles have very high velocity at close range but because of poor sectional density loose velocity and then kinetic energy very quickly limiting their effective range.

the Arrow on the other hand has low velocity and an extremely high sectional density. its kinetic energy is very low so it tends to loose very little energy to the target per unit of distance penetrated. in spite of this very low impact velocity shooter throughs on say a deer sized target is common.


The instantaneous sectional density at time of impact is defined as the ratio of the stones mass to the projected surface area of the stone in direction of motion.

All that this stone has going for it in terms of potential to harm is its kinetic energy and its ability to transfer / loose that energy to a target (can be air or the donkey ) in this scenario. It has no particular shape, its made of a mono material.

The wounds created by these random missiles are massive. ! Not because they have attributes like whether they are mono metals , or round of flat nosed , or perhaps they mushroom or fragment.

Their wounds are massive because they have high impact kinetic energy and they tend to transfer that energy readily to the target because of poor sectional density ! This accounts for the very high rate of limb amputations caused by IED’s !

Roy Weatherby was was both wrong a right when he proclaimed that speed kills.
The right part in a round about way with a lot of if’s that needed checking in the effect box
Wrong in his reasoning and logic.

In a different life I served in a special forces medical unit specifically formed to give medical support to special forces operations in Angola ( and other places in Africa) Anyway we built a “bush hospital “ at a place called Mucusso in Southern Angola on the banks of the Okovango river just North of 32 bn’s Buffalo headquarters in the Caprivi.

Looking back it occurred to me how many amputations we did and were collected at the village of Mucusso. We were young stupid and rather untrained for the task at hand.

It took many many years for it to sink in why exactly there were so many amputations in blast survivors.
The point being they all had massive wounds but they survived !

A causing B and B having the potential of death as a outcome ie C.
A does not necessarily lead to C
There is a link between A and B, the link between B and C dependent on non projectile related factors.... a biological response that has nothing to do with the missile and its attributes

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Mike:
To the contrary, I am trying very hard to be logical about the subject.

I’ll put it to you this way.

What if our “bullet” was not symmetrical, not spin stabilized, had no Construction, no specific shape, just a random irregular shape........ say a piece of gravel on a road in Afghanistan or perhaps a hunting arrow ?

It’s “fired” at a dismounted soldier or civilian at a velocity of up to 11,000 FPS driven by a EID which is made of some unexploded US ordinance..... now our propellant is no longer a low order explosive but a high order explosive.

If we don’t like the human target lets assume a civilian using a donkey cart and the donkey gets hit by our flying stone.

In the case of the hunting arrow fired at say a deer , here mass is high velocity low.

This random stone is no different than a symmetrical spin stabilized bullet fired from a gun.

How would we argue the merits of various stones in this scenario as to their potential to do harm or to kill ?

The principles of the process have to sound because if its not the argument fails.


The stone has mass and it has velocity
Thus it has kinetic energy albeit massive kinetic energy at impact ! Sectional density is rather poor so they loose energy very quickly in air or target. This incidentally is quite typical of missiles generated by say fragmentation grenades, their missiles have very high velocity at close range but because of poor sectional density loose velocity and then kinetic energy very quickly limiting their effective range.

the Arrow on the other hand has low velocity and an extremely high sectional density. its kinetic energy is very low so it tends to loose very little energy to the target per unit of distance penetrated. in spite of this very low impact velocity shooter throughs on say a deer sized target is common.


The instantaneous sectional density at time of impact is defined as the ratio of the stones mass to the projected surface area of the stone in direction of motion.

All that this stone has going for it in terms of potential to harm is its kinetic energy and its ability to transfer / loose that energy to a target (can be air or the donkey ) in this scenario. It has no particular shape, its made of a mono material.

The wounds created by these random missiles are massive. ! Not because they have attributes like whether they are mono metals , or round of flat nosed , or perhaps they mushroom or fragment.

Their wounds are massive because they have high impact kinetic energy and they tend to transfer that energy readily to the target because of poor sectional density ! This accounts for the very high rate of limb amputations caused by IED’s !

Roy Weatherby was was both wrong a right when he proclaimed that speed kills.
The right part in a round about way with a lot of if’s that needed checking in the effect box
Wrong in his reasoning and logic.

In a different life I served in a special forces medical unit specifically formed to give medical support to special forces operations in Angola ( and other places in Africa) Anyway we built a “bush hospital “ at a place called Mucusso in Southern Angola on the banks of the Okovango river just North of 32 bn’s Buffalo headquarters in the Caprivi.

Looking back it occurred to me how many amputations we did and were collected at the village of Mucusso. We were young stupid and rather untrained for the task at hand.

It took many many years for it to sink in why exactly there were so many amputations in blast survivors.
The point being they all had massive wounds but they survived !

A causing B and B having the potential of death as a outcome ie C.
A does not necessarily lead to C
There is a link between A and B, the link between B and C dependent on non projectile related factors.... a biological response that has nothing to do with the missile and its attributes

Your missive makes me think of the US tank APFSDS round. It has a very small diameter relative to its target but the high impact velocity and concentration of energy makes the armor of the tank it hits projectiles themselves.

I guess the point I am not following is SD; if I read your post, you imply SD is not important for tissue damage but without it, you might not achieve the penetration required. The SD of an APFSDS round has got to be incredible; the whole point of moving to a fin stabilized round was lengthen the projectile to concentrate energy.

Alf,

Thank you for illustrating my point by your long explanation.

My original comment:

But it is not just "energy"

and

It really is the combination of impact velocity, bullet weight, shape and construction that allows for penetration which causes tissue damage. (typo corrected I removed the "for" which was inadvertently typed)



***************************************************************************************************************************

Of course one or multiple 1/2 ounce 219 grain pieces of metal or rock regardless of their "construction or shape" impacting tissue at say 8000 fps with over 31000 ft lbs of energy each can cause massive damage. But that is not what were are talking about here. We are talking about rifle bullets with differences of 300-500 fps or 12%-20% and similar weight differences resulting in energy differences typically in the range of 25%-40% maybe as much as 100% when there are fast differences in chamberings. Not energy differences of 15 fold.



Here is a relevant example:


A match grade 308 175 grn HP target bullet launched at 2900 fps striking a heavy boned animal at close range (2850 fps) on the shoulder and coming apart and not penetrating and therefore achieving non-lethal tissue damage. As opposed to a Nosler partition 308 165 at 2650 fps of different construction, and slower impact speed say 2600 fps penetrating and causing lethal tissue damage. The major difference construction.

Bullets are projectiles. They vary in shape, sizes, weight, construction and the velocity at which they travel.

Here is a low tech example with moderately greater discrepancies.

Projectile 1 = A baseball having an impact velocity 80 mph or 117 fps weighing 5 1/4 ounces which equals 2297 grains equaling 70.2 ft lbs of energy.

Projectile 2 = A throwing dagger weighing about 250 grams or 3850 grains and can have an impact velocity of 30 mph (expert throwers are known release a knife at over 33 mph) or 44 fps equaling 16.5 ft lbs of energy.

The baseball hits a human in the side right between two ribs - example outcome = fractured ribs.

The dagger hits a human in the side right between between two ribs (point first) - example outcome = punctured lung and perforated heart.

The baseball contains over 4 times more energy. I can increase the knife speed to 50 mph and its still 35% less energy.

What is the major differences between the two projectiles? shape and construction with some difference in weight (refer back to my quote above) that allows for penetration which causes tissue damage. Note, considerably less energy.

Please do not go into a long explanation about "pointy" vs "round" as that is addressed by shape.

Please do not go into a long discussion about surface area of impact and the related topic of energy transfer as that is addressed by shape and/or construction.

Please do not go into a long discussion about it being irrelevant to bullets because we have spitzers to wadcutters to round balls.

Finally, Let's deal with just construction:

Projectile 1 - a baseball 5 1/4 ounces

Projectile 2 - a sphere 5 1/4 ounces same size and weight as a baseball but which consists of a heavier center sphere wrapped with 1 1/4 inches cotton strips (i.e. padding) all around and lightly wrapped with masking tape. The tape is strong enough to hold it together during flight.

Both are thrown at an initial velocity of 80 mph regardless that one will lose velocity faster than the other at some point both will be travelling 70 mph and have the same energy. They both strike the subject in abdomen. What is going to do more soft tissue damage? The "hard" baseball or the sphere with the 1 1/4 cotton padding light wrapped in masking tape that will compress more than the baseball when it hits human flesh. Given, the masking tape it may compress to the point the tape bursts and comes apart with some energy expended laterally away parallel to the body and not into the tissue.

Knifes, and broad heads have a different method of destroying tissue.

Both placed in the right place well cause very quick death.

Use them to penetrate the CNS they well cause instant collapse.

Both use with relative low energy levels.

P dog,

Your point is exactly right. I would amplify that many things in the world exist on a continuum - in this case highly efficient cutting edges vs. less efficient cutting edges.

A broadhead and knife are edged weapons which cut thru tissue and a good portion their penetration abilities is driven by their efficient cutting shape; i.e., the cutting edge.

As a bullet deforms it too creates cutting edges less efficient cutting edges but still cutting edges. Similarly, when a bullet fragments (Berger promotes the idea that their bullet is designed significantly fragment after a few inches of penetration) it creates cutting edges also from the fragments.

Returning to my example above, the thrown knife is never going to exceed the energy of the baseball.

I didn't do the calcs for an arrow above but a little research shows that bows with appropriate arrows for elk/black generate 50-65 energy at point blank range.

So again, what is more lethal 55 lbs of energy in the arrow at impact (assume a close distance) or 70 lbs of energy (a 27% increase) from the baseball.

Seems like folks enjoy reading things into simple concise statements such as "it's not just energy" or "It really is the combination of impact velocity, bullet weight, shape and construction that allows for [if you prefer creates or causes or effects] penetration which causes tissue damage.

Let me try again !

The principles behind missile injury !

By definition bullet fired from a gun is a Passive Kinetic energy penetrator by the same principle a rock thrown by a slingshot or an arrow fired from a bow, or a baseball, golfball, even darts or missiles dropped from the air by aircraft ( Flechettes in WWI and lazy dog bombs during the Vietnam war )

Passive in that once the projectile is launched no new energy is added to it.

All these missiles have a few qualities in common irrespective of their shape, construction, form etc.

In keeping with their definition :

1. They have kinetic energy and

2. They all possess an ability to convert and transfer that kinetic energy to another form of energy when impacting a target.

The ability to transfer energy to the target is driven by the derived ratio of mass to presenting surface area ( in essence "wetted " surface area ) in direction of motion of the missile or its parts in the event of it deforming or fragmenting

This energy transfer has the potential of bringing about structural change in the target commensurate with the target's mechanical properties. It is important to note that energy is transformed in this scenario to Mechanical energy, acoustic energy and thermal energy.

For all practical purposes it is only mechanical energy that has the potential of doing damage by virtue of the fact that it has the ability of moving target material.

These are principles and are not necessarily bound to structure, form or shape.

An example is injury caused by fluid jets. Example water from a power washer or worse someone holding a hand in front of a diesel injector to feel if it is open and diesel is coming through.

Theodor Emille Kocher a swiss surgeon who was the first recipient of the Nobel prize for medicine recognized this fact and published so in 1875 !

Other came after and expanded on Kochers postulates.

Then things went off track !

In 1866 an agreement was reached by international members of the Red Cross to regulate bullets used in Warfare by the very factors argued for here namely construction, shape and form. (The Hague declaration of 1866 )

They banned bullets that expanded or fragmented for purposes of " Humane" warfare under the banner of causation of "unnecessary suffering"

Just as we intuitively tend to view these bullet factors ie construction, shape construction as important as they did in 1866 and did so for many years until the 80's when the realization dawned that these factors did not stand up to the test of principle when subjected to scientific scrutiny.

A Simple observation was and is what we now call the fallacy of the fragmenting or deforming bullet

For an attribute to hold up as being principle it has to be valid all the time not some of the time.

in terms of creating a wound, construction shape and form are valid factors in wound creation under some conditions but not all conditions ie it does not stand as principles

A simple example would be the effect of firing a small caliber fragmenting bullet at high velocity into a gofer and then into a elephant thigh..... the gofer explodes into a red mist and the elephant hardly sustains a wound of significance.


So from a bullet factor side shape form and construction effect is determined by target factors

This demonstrates the flaw in the Hague declaration.

In the 70s after Vietnam we surgically treated gunshot wounds based on this flawed reasoning.


The Hague declaration banned these bullets from warfare when in fact non deforming , non fragmenting bullets caused as much damage and suffering as those banned !

If in principle the attributes of construction , shape and form always lead to a bigger wound then they would stand as valid factors in wound causation.

This then is the very reason the ICRC are in the process of amending their position regarding the provisions of the Hague declaration and also the basis on which the USA defended their position successfully on the use of the M193 Bullet in warfare. It also lead to a revision of the Red Cross wound classification system

My initial statement:

quote:

But it is not just "energy".

It really is the combination of impact velocity, bullet weight, shape and construction that allows for penetration which causes for tissue damage

[Note: weight x velocity are the factors in energy calculations ]

Your initial response:

This is factually untrue ! It is a physics fallacy to state that construction shape and etc causes tissue damage !

[Note: the exclamations points]

Followed by your physics lecture

Followed by my examples of why I disagree with your original emphatic statement and advising you the previous posts made are relevant reading.

Followed by another physics/history lecture from you.

Followed by examples from me as to why I disagree.

Followed by a another physics/history lecture from you including this:

"in terms of creating a wound, construction shape and form are valid factors in wound creation under some conditions but not all conditions ie it does not stand as principles

A simple example would be the effect of firing a small caliber fragmenting bullet at high velocity into a gofer and then into a elephant thigh..... the gofer explodes into a red mist and the elephant hardly sustains a wound of significance."

Alf,

I or anybody else has never said any of these things (including energy) are absolutes (or even approach theorems/principles) in creating wounds and resulting biological response and that is clear in the posts. Read the other posts above as I previously mentioned. This passage in particular:


"You can apply the same to heart shots. Heart shots induce massive bleeding. Most bullets expand to about a ~200% of original diameter given appropriate impact velocity. Let's say I launch a 150 grain barnes out of a 270 Win @ 2900 and 175 grain barnes out of the 30-06 @ 2825 because I used Hodgdon's Superperfomance.

Let's say range is 250 yards. One will expand to .554 and the other will expand to .616 a difference of 62/1000. Impact velocity for the 270 is 2379 with 1871 ft lbs of energy. The 30-06 is 2423 and 2282 ft lbs, a difference of 22% in ft lbs delivered.

Both those bullets are perfect heart shots on are [typo] theoretical separate deer and they both completely penetrate the heart.

One deer has a theoretical 11% larger hole in its heart and received 22% more energy.

What do we expect? That the deer shot by the 270 runs 36 yards but the deer hit by the 30-06 runs only 30? or the 270 deer ran 72 yards but the 30-06 deer ran only 60 and do we even care?

If you conducted that test 10 times there would be no consistency in the deer that ran farther and of the 20 deer shot in the side by side 10 tests the results would be all over the place. Some deer would collapse on the spot, some would stumble 10 steps and collapse, some would run 25 yards and collapse, some would run 50 yards and collapse and there would be no ryhme or reason to which deer did what based on what bullet they were struck with.

You could use a 300 Win Mag instead of a 30-06 and you would get the same random responses from heart shot deer."

I would add shape and construction always have an effect. It may not be the same effect, it may not be consistent, it may not be the desired effect but when one object strikes another the shape and construction of the striking object always has an effect on the damage to the target in/for that particular instance and of course the effect is relative to the target - nobody has implied it isn't.

Sincerely - have a great weekend.

Why does the term "mental masturbation" come to mind?

quote:

Originally posted by nopride2:
It's a good thing animals can't read ballistic tables.

Dave

Ain't that the truth.

If the early settlers had all this knowledge of trajectory and projectile energy theory under their belts, they would have never left England!

Although it is good to know the theoretical limits of your rifle/cartridge combination, I think it is even more important to know your practical limitations as a hunter.


BH63

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Why does the term "mental masturbation" come to mind?

Makes me think of the guy who thinks he is the smartest person in the room when I am giving a sales presentation. Why I don't sell to engineers...

I don't hunt beyond ethical ranges and with modern range finding equipment I could care less about trajectory.

The 300 mag, 30-06 and 308 all kill game about the same in my experience. Good bullets in the vitals do the killing. Not headstamps.

Use what suits your fancy.

We should have quit with todds early post back a ways, it made oh so much since...BTW mental masturbation was coined by yours truly..send me a dollar.

The amusing aspect of this debate is nuanced rationalization: we'll go to (il)logical extremes to defend our favorite cartridges.

Dead is dead. There is only one degree of dead and that's dead. As long as it's humane, who cares how it's effected? Does it matter whether an arrow @ 300 FPS or an ounce of metal at 3000 FPS fills a big game tag?

Took me a long time to admit that the best rifle & cartridge combo I owned was a 22" barreled .270 Win. I've kept my heavy 7MM Rem Mag rifle because it's incredibly accurate. I did sell my .338 Win Mag. I had no use for it. My 7MM Rem Mag kills huge elk just as dead w/o pain and suffering at both ends.

I'll take extra accuracy over extra, nebulous ballistic advantage that a nuanced magnum might provide. I'll take a lightweight and accurate .270 Win rifle every single time if the options include rifles that hurt at both ends.

The reality of my world is I didn't need a .338 Win Mag to kill elk. It did take actual proof of this fact before I could no longer deny facts: put any good-quality bullet pushed by any suitable big game cartridge into any big game animal's oxygenated blood pumping apparatus and it'll have seconds of hoof time remaining.

"Yes, EMP3, a .30-30 Win will kill as dead as any rifle you own if you know how to shoot it and where to place its bullets."

EMP3's response: "Don't confuse me with facts when I'm running on nuanced brand loyalty. My favorite cartridge will kill big game deader than all others because it's my favorite. And what do facts have to do with an emotional debate???"

Does a hunter need a .300 RUM to do what an '06 will do??? The answer to that is the hypothetical hunter's favorite cartridge.