Glenn,

I like your humble approach and the fact that you like structured information - that is exactly what I posted on the Sectional Density thread.

303Guy,

I like your positive approach, unlike some wise cracks that know everything without having to learn anything.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I haven't seen anyone posting what they think a minimum of "momentum" would be for deer hunting.....or elk hunting...

Since so many prefer to measure momentum, I thought you might want to share your thoughts on the minimum momentum required for our favorite North American hunts.

This is how the thread started. Did anyone give a minimum momentum figure? It went through quite an evolution and then came back to the subject of momentum, but no one ever gave a number, that I saw. I shouldn't be talking, I didn't either.

However, I found it to be an interesting thread that made me rethink the usefulness, or lack thereof, of momentum and energy figures.

From Biggameinfo

quote:

We've all heard the arguments regarding kinetic energy versus momentum. Many authors have attempted to come up with an objective method of determining the "Killing power" of cartridge loadings. This is one that actually makes sense. It differentiates light bullet energies and heavy bullet energies with a degree of rationale I've not found in other systems. It produces numbers that most experienced hunters will find intuitively correct, expressed in a form that is convenient for the hunter, optimum game weigt in pounds. The weight calculated assumes that occassionally you will take a hard quartering shot. If you push the envelope, the author suggests that you choose a load that will deliver a 25% heavier rating. This alsobassumes that the bullet chosen is constructed appropriately for the game being hunted.

The recommendation for deer/antelope as for TKO values are from 6 to 17

.224 caliber, 60 grain bullet at 3500 (22-250 Rem)

1631 ft/lbs energy muzzle

26.47 lbft/sec momentum at 100 yards

TKO of 6

OGW at 100 yards is 159 pounds (small deer)

.243 caliber, 95 grain bullet at 3200 (.243 Win or WSSM)

1824 ft/lbs energy muzzle

40 for momentum

TKO of 11

OGW at 100 yards is 347 pounds (good Mulie)

.308 Caliber, 150 grain bullet at 2800 (.308 Win)

2586 ft/lbs energy muzzle

55.42 momentum

TKO of 18

OGW at 100 yards 584 pounds (Elk)

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I haven't seen anyone posting what they think a minimum of "momentum" would be for deer hunting.....or elk hunting...

Since so many prefer to measure momentum, I thought you might want to share your thoughts on the minimum momentum required for our favorite North American hunts.

Taking the Taylor and Optimal Game Weight formulas as correct, TKO of a minimum of 6 for deer, the minimum momentum required for deer at 100 yards would be 26 lbft/sec.

For elk Taylor recommends an index of 20 to 40. The .308 150 grain is close with an TKO of 18. The momentum for that load is 55.42 lbft/sec

After seeing the results of both the OGW calculator and TKO calculator, they pretty well jive with an experienced hunter's/rifleman's intuition and I believe they can be relied upon.

quote:

This is how the thread started. Did anyone give a minimum momentum figure? It went through quite an evolution and then came back to the subject of momentum, but no one ever gave a number, that I saw. I shouldn't be talking, I didn't either.

However, I found it to be an interesting thread that made me rethink the usefulness, or lack thereof, of momentum and energy figures.

I did, sort of. I suppose in "the heat of the moment" it was overlooked.

Since it's my quote, I cleaned the presentation up a little from the original.

quote:

Based on what I've learned over the years, I could maybe give a few wild guesses, just for the sake of an armchair discussion:

Assuming that the bullet can penetrate enough:

Deer: 25-45 ft-lbs/sec.

For somewhat larger game: 45-60.

60-80 might be better for about the biggest in North America.

90-100 ft-lbs/sec might be the bare safe minimum for dangerous game.

Possibly about 150 or better when the game absolutely has to be put down NOW!

Of course, misses count as 0.

It was a kind of spur-of-the moment, off the top of my head kind of thing. Don't take it to the bank.

Pretty good analysis Someoldguy!

One question chaps.

In our hunting culture nobody really tries to come up with a formula based on a few variables to predict the effect of a dynamic event like this, what is the compulsion when we all roughly know what works and what doesn't and the time taken consulting a table or a graph could be taken consulting an experienced old hand?

Secondly, with all of the caveats that are properly attached to such a figure ( ie assuming x about bullet construction and y about wound path ) why would those figure be more useful than the standard practice at the moment of " Use a minimum of 9.3 with a good 286 grain bullet like the RWS TUG or the NP for buff"?

As if most folk are going to be modelling their rifle purchase on Excel before going to the gun shop....

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
Pretty good analysis Someoldguy!

Thanks. But I may have seen something like it in a gun rag some years ago. It's actually been about 20 years since I last looked at a gun rag.

quote:

In our hunting culture nobody really tries to come up with a formula based on a few variables to predict the effect of a dynamic event like this, what is the compulsion when we all roughly know what works and what doesn't and the time taken consulting a table or a graph could be taken consulting an experienced old hand?

I think it honestly depends on who the simplified formula comes from. If it came from one of the noted gun writers and/or hunters, then some might see it like the Ten Commandments, like the TKO, etc. But if it comes from "someoldguy" Glenn McCall, a disabled former 911 dispatcher of the Accurate Reloading forum, then who would pay attention to that?
In the world of simplified formulas, publicity is everything!

I think it honestly depends on who the simplified formula comes from. If it came from one of the noted gun writers and/or hunters, then some might see it like the Ten Commandments, like the TKO, etc. But if it comes from "someoldguy" Glenn McCall, a disabled former 911 dispatcher of the Accurate Reloading forum, then who would pay attention to that?
In the world of simplified formulas, publicity is everything![/QUOTE]



You cunning old fox you!

I listened for hours to my old uncle who grew up in the bush in Africa and who became a gun maker in the then Rhodesia - now Zimbabwe. Since then I have found all kinds of sources of anecdotal evidence and made personal observations that actually confirm his teachings. I've also expanded on him a little and also found out what he meant when telling of a particular cartridges 'out of proportion' killing power as well as the unexpected results of a bullet impact. He told me about bullet failure and failure of a bullet to reach the vitals. He was in favour of high sectional density moderate speed bullets with plenty of penetration and controlled expansion. He used to say there is no such thing as too much gun. But he was refering to bigger caliber moderate velocity, heavy bulleted guns.

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:
I think it honestly depends on who the simplified formula comes from. If it came from one of the noted gun writers and/or hunters, then some might see it like the Ten Commandments, like the TKO, etc. But if it comes from "someoldguy" Glenn McCall, a disabled former 911 dispatcher of the Accurate Reloading forum, then who would pay attention to that?
In the world of simplified formulas, publicity is everything!

You cunning old fox you![/QUOTE]

Well, Ghubert, I was overqualified but needed the money.

The Importance of Adequate Bullet Weight

This actual account may well highlight the importance of bullet weight to drive momentum values up.

Frans Oberholzer; an avid supporter of the Barnes-X bullet, that is known for its excellent penetration ability, was hunting kudu when he encountered shallow penetration with his 270 Win (Ruger M77) at a distance of 300 yards. This shot was never to be, but his friends dared him to see what a marksmen Frans really was. True to form, Frans put the bullet in the vital area - it ran another 80 yards before going down to perish. That day Frans only had his 'Springbok load' with him - 130 gr bullets loaded to 2,932 fps, a custom load of 51.0 gr S365, ensuring the highest velocity, and at the same time maximising the energy value (Ft-lbs)!

At first glance, one might say that the calibre/bullet/load combination ought to be adequate - one of the best premium grade bullets at the highest velocity. What could be wrong then? ... Ok, the kudu was 300 yards away, not too close, but its stance was for a perfect broadside shot, aiding an easy kill, if aimed for the heart. Could the culprit be too light a bullet? Some people advocate higher velocity at the expense of bullet mass, in the belief that they are doing better. Firstly, let us take a careful look at the bullet that was retrieved:-

* It retained 100% of its original weight - excellent performance!
* It mushroomed perfectly to 2 times original diameter - to cut a nice wound path!
* The only bone that was encountered was the first rib on its way in.
* It went through one lung and only pierced the one ventricle of the heart.
* The striking velocity at 300 yds at 2,307 fps was ideal, not so?
* All petals are turned to one side - proof that a bullet spins through an animal.
* Shallow penetration - only a few inches ..... how do we make sense of this?

Here is the bullet:



Let us now consider momentum values, the driving force behind the bullet, where bullet mass and velocity plays an equal roll or more specifically, 'terminal momentum', which is the product of striking velocity, after the bullet has slowed down and after the bullet has lost weight on impact.

The terminal momentum of Frans' bullet/load combination of a 130 gr Barnes-X bullet at an impact velocity of 2,307 fps, was actually too low at 42.8 ft-lbs/sec for the very young kudu bull, given the shallow penetration to be regarded as proper kudu medicine at that range, even though the kudu was killed.

In all fairness to the Barnes-X bullet, no other bullet would have performed better ... the 'punch' was simply too low at that distance ... that is the point. As shot placement can differ on another occasion, either better or worse penetration can be experienced due to differing target densities - so one can never be absolute about figures; they are merely guidelines. What happens when one strikes major bone or a big kudu bull weighing up to 660 pounds at an oblique angle.

When one recommends a calibre or a particular bullet load combination for a particular antelope, I believe one should be conservative, and base it on angling shots for the biggest specimen, and one should qualify if it is good for short range or long range shots.

Here is the young kudu bull:



Warrior

Okay, like with the SD thread, I'm bowing out of this particular discussion. I suppose we'll all just stick with whatever idea satisfies us.

quote:

quote:
Based on what I've learned over the years, I could maybe give a few wild guesses, just for the sake of an armchair discussion:

Assuming that the bullet can penetrate enough:

Deer: 25-45 ft-lbs/sec.

For somewhat larger game: 45-60.

60-80 might be better for about the biggest in North America.

90-100 ft-lbs/sec might be the bare safe minimum for dangerous game.

Possibly about 150 or better when the game absolutely has to be put down NOW!

Of course, misses count as 0.

Perhaps we can relate Frans' kudu story (based on actual experience) to the above and conclude that for kudu 42.8 ft-lbs/sec should be an absolute bare minimum under ideal conditions, but you be the judge where you want to draw the line for yourself as the minimum.

At that range one is simply better off with a heavier bullet, such as a 180 grainer from a 300 Win Mag imho.

Warrior

With all the transcribed bologna, it sure makes a person wonder if the transcribers have ever actually Killed anything. I'll go out on a short limb and say - Nope, they never have!

Hot Core, you you made me think about the deer I've killed in my, I'm not sure how many, years of deer hunting. I've killed deer with low to moderate SD bullets, cartridges with low to moderate momentum, low to moderate energy, and low to high velocity. (I'm not endorsing or recommending the use of anything "low", or what would be considered under powered for deer.) However, the one thing I have learned for sure is that you can kill deer with almost anything if your shot placement is good. If shot placement is too poor you can't kill one with a cannon.

Hey!

I just ran TEANCUM'S 350 yard mule deer load through the OGW calculator!

.223 Remington

40 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip Varmint Bullet

+or- 3600 fps

356 ft/lbs of energy

11.44 lbft/sec of momentum

Optimal Game Weight at 350 yards...19 pounds!

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
Hey!

I just ran TEANCUM'S 350 yard mule deer load through the OGW calculator!

.223 Remington

40 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip Varmint Bullet

+or- 3600 fps

356 ft/lbs of energy

11.44 lbft/sec of momentum

Optimal Game Weight at 350 yards...19 pounds!

It really isn't fair.....you should have half your brain tied behind your back when getting into a tussle like that!

quote:

Originally posted by Red C.:

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I haven't seen anyone posting what they think a minimum of "momentum" would be for deer hunting.....or elk hunting...

Since so many prefer to measure momentum, I thought you might want to share your thoughts on the minimum momentum required for our favorite North American hunts.

This is how the thread started. Did anyone give a minimum momentum figure? It went through quite an evolution and then came back to the subject of momentum, but no one ever gave a number, that I saw. I shouldn't be talking, I didn't either.

However, I found it to be an interesting thread that made me rethink the usefulness, or lack thereof, of momentum and energy figures.

To give a minimum would only be a guess. I doubt that anyone has shot enough animals at enough different conditions to KNOW for sure what the very minimum is.

TKO and OGW is only the opinion of the creator and in no way a scientific formula. One will not go wrong with them, but they are not the end all be all that some claim them to be

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
From Biggameinfo

quote:

We've all heard the arguments regarding kinetic energy versus momentum. Many authors have attempted to come up with an objective method of determining the "Killing power" of cartridge loadings. This is one that actually makes sense. It differentiates light bullet energies and heavy bullet energies with a degree of rationale I've not found in other systems. It produces numbers that most experienced hunters will find intuitively correct, expressed in a form that is convenient for the hunter, optimum game weigt in pounds. The weight calculated assumes that occassionally you will take a hard quartering shot. If you push the envelope, the author suggests that you choose a load that will deliver a 25% heavier rating. This alsobassumes that the bullet chosen is constructed appropriately for the game being hunted.

The recommendation for deer/antelope as for TKO values are from 6 to 17

.224 caliber, 60 grain bullet at 3500 (22-250 Rem)

1631 ft/lbs energy muzzle

26.47 lbft/sec momentum at 100 yards

TKO of 6

OGW at 100 yards is 159 pounds (small deer)

.243 caliber, 95 grain bullet at 3200 (.243 Win or WSSM)

1824 ft/lbs energy muzzle

40 for momentum

TKO of 11

OGW at 100 yards is 347 pounds (good Mulie)

.308 Caliber, 150 grain bullet at 2800 (.308 Win)

2586 ft/lbs energy muzzle

55.42 momentum

TKO of 18

OGW at 100 yards 584 pounds (Elk)

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I haven't seen anyone posting what they think a minimum of "momentum" would be for deer hunting.....or elk hunting...

Since so many prefer to measure momentum, I thought you might want to share your thoughts on the minimum momentum required for our favorite North American hunts.

Taking the Taylor and Optimal Game Weight formulas as correct, TKO of a minimum of 6 for deer, the minimum momentum required for deer at 100 yards would be 26 lbft/sec.

For elk Taylor recommends an index of 20 to 40. The .308 150 grain is close with an TKO of 18. The momentum for that load is 55.42 lbft/sec

After seeing the results of both the OGW calculator and TKO calculator, they pretty well jive with an experienced hunter's/rifleman's intuition and I believe they can be relied upon.

To me it makes little difference what a hunter wants to measure....but sooner or later there is a point that he runs short of it to effect clean kills on the game he is hunting.

It becomes clear that some don't want to be bound by anything that might curb their choice even if that choice is on the spur of the moment and baseless....

We have seen several instances of it here posted as "great marksmanship" when in fact it's little more than unethical (and often illegal) hunting.

They didn't want to state their preferences in ft-lb energy and preferred momentum and now refuse to state a preference for that as well.....what's one to think?

quote:

Originally posted by Red C.:
I'm not endorsing or recommending the use of anything "low", or what would be considered under powered for deer.... However, the one thing I have learned for sure is that you can kill deer with almost anything if your shot placement is good. If shot placement is too poor you can't kill one with a cannon.

The "with almost anything" is the part that is basically what this thread is about. I agree with you.

Inadequate "Energy", which translates into an Inadequate Cartridge, has been known show what little actual First Hand Game Killing Experience some on this board have.

I see one excellent example by R, just aways up from here. Pitiful and Pathetic!

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by Red C.:
I'm not endorsing or recommending the use of anything "low", or what would be considered under powered for deer.... However, the one thing I have learned for sure is that you can kill deer with almost anything if your shot placement is good. If shot placement is too poor you can't kill one with a cannon.

The "with almost anything" is the part that is basically what this thread is about. I agree with you.

Inadequate "Energy", which translates into an Inadequate Cartridge, has been known show what little actual First Hand Game Killing Experience some on this board have.

I see one excellent example by R, just aways up from here. Pitiful and Pathetic!

Tell us about your game killing expereince, how man ELK, DEER have you taken?

Gidday Guys,

Having read through all this I have decided I will continue to tip over deer (red, fallow, whitetail, tahr and chamois) with my 222, 260 and 30-06 until you can reach a unanamous dececision as to what is required to kill a deer.

I don't think I am going to starve to death waiting for a result and won't worry too much about the theory while putting in some 50gr hornadys into some 300lb stags with good effect.

Please let me know when everyone agrees so I may either continue or stop this but until then I would prefer to just keep on getting my venison with what I know works.

My suggestion would be stop talking about it and get out there and get some practical experience. Once you have over a thousand deer on the deck then I would suggest you know what you are talking about.

Theory is just that until you can back it up with real world experience like Bell and his elephants.

Happy Hunting

Hamish

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by Red C.:
I'm not endorsing or recommending the use of anything "low", or what would be considered under powered for deer.... However, the one thing I have learned for sure is that you can kill deer with almost anything if your shot placement is good. If shot placement is too poor you can't kill one with a cannon.

The "with almost anything" is the part that is basically what this thread is about. I agree with you.

Inadequate "Energy", which translates into an Inadequate Cartridge, has been known show what little actual First Hand Game Killing Experience some on this board have.

I see one excellent example by R, just aways up from here. Pitiful and Pathetic!

Tell us about your game killing expereince, how man ELK, DEER have you taken?

jwp475, were you asking me or Hot Core how many deer and elk? I have often wished I'd have kept a log of all the whitetail deer I've taken and the pertinent info for each (to help plan future hunts), but I didn't. However, I'm pretty sure I've taken about 63 or more whitetail deer (with bows, primitive arms, and rifles). My largest was a 185lb (field dressed) buck, and my smallest--I'm not sure--though it would probably be embarrassing. I don't have any experience with elk.

Red C, I was asking Hot Core to expand on his vast experience.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...631014251#8631014251

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
The Importance of Adequate Bullet Weight

Could the culprit be too light a bullet? Some people advocate higher velocity at the expense of bullet mass, in the belief that they are doing better...

In all fairness to the Barnes-X bullet, no other bullet would have performed better ... the 'punch' was simply too low at that distance ..

Theres more than enough bullet weight, just needs higher vel./more momentum,...ie;to be fired from 270Weatherby 3300-3400mv instead of 270win 2932mv.

Yes the extra momentum would have probably driven the bullet deeper, but the 270 Wby is as scarce as hen's teeth here in SA.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
Yes the extra momentum would have driven the bullet deeper, but the 270 Wby is as scarce as hen's teeth here in SA.

Warrior

Ok, seeing you want to be pedantic, 270Weatherby 130gn monometal 3300-3400mv- 7mmRemMag 130 monometal 3300-3400mv, = same result on game.

"With a 130gr GS Custom HV, the STW delivers the same energy at 400 meters as the 7x57 at the muzzle.... In August 1998 Colin and Gray Carterfield went hunting in the Boshoff district in the Free State and in the presence of the incredulous farm owner, shot a black wildebeest at a ranged 450 metres. The GS Custom HV bullet penetrated fully and was not recovered."

Trax the 7 mm Rem Mag yields 3200 fps with a 130 grainer, and yes it would have been better, but the real point as I indicated was the momentum level of 42.8 ft-lbs/sec being nearly too low and then on a smallish young kudu bull at a perfect broad-side shot. On an angling shot at a huge bull we would need more momentum and for that reason it is more ideal to go to a heavier bullet like a 180 grainers, even though the velocity is lower.

Remember Dr Ashby? Dr Ashby demonstrated on game with Barnes -X bullets that penetration suffers as we increase velocity.

With the .223 bullet an increase in impact velocity of only 279 fps (2,369 - 2,090) reduced the penetration by 2.28 inches (16.03" - 13.75"), but at a higher impact velocity of 3,105 fps the penetration reduced by 9.7 inches (16.03" - 6.33"). This is quite significant. After Dr Ashby arrived at his conclusion with the .223 caliber bullet, he was indeed curious to see if the same principle of shallower penetration at higher velocities hold true for bigger caliber bullets as well.

He then proved this trend in the 30-06 and says at 2,792 fps the 165-gr X-bullet penetrates far less deeply than it does at a velocity of 2,428 fps. None at low velocity fail to exit, but at high velocity frequently bullets failed to exit. The he went further and tested the 270-gr .375 bullets at just over 2,400 fps MV on 20 animals (wildebeest, kudu, & zebra). All were deliberately adverse angled shots in the hope to retrieve some of the bullets. All were one shot kills and all bullets did exit.

Warrior

Tissue resistance is greater for the bullet, the higher the velocity gets. You could demonstrate this phenomenon just by moving your hand through water slowly and then faster and you will appreciate the incremental resistance. This increased resistance-force causes bullet failure (rapture or shattering) in soft point bullets and that is why we get better penetration at lower velocities as the bullet holds together better, thus retaining its momentum better. The following table depicts pressure in water, which mimics the density of flesh.

V (Fps)-- P in Psi
3,281 --- 72,518
3,117 --- 65,455
2,953 --- 58,740
2,789 --- 52,402
2,625 --- 46,412
2,461 --- 40,799
2,297 --- 35,534
2,133 --- 30,646
1,969 --- 26,106
1,805 --- 21,944
1,641 --- 18,130
1,476 --- 14,692

Jam pressure = Pj = ½ * rho*v² [bar]
rho = density [g/cm³]
v = velocity [m/s]

Warrior

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warrior:
Trax the 7 mm Rem Mag yields 3200 fps with a 130 grainer, and yes it would have been better, but the real point as I indicated was the momentum level of 42.8 ft-lbs/sec being nearly too low and then on a smallish young kudu bull at a perfect broad-side shot. On an angling shot at a huge bull we would need more momentum and for that reason it is more ideal to go to a heavier bullet like a 180 grainers, even though the velocity is lower.

clearly your experience with 130gn monometals in 7mm Mag is rather limted.


Remember Dr Ashby? Dr Ashby demonstrated on game with Barnes -X bullets that penetration suffers as we increase velocity.

He then proved this trend in the 30-06 and says at 2,792 fps the 165-gr X-bullet penetrates far less deeply than it does at a velocity of 2,428 fps. None at low velocity fail to exit, but at high velocity frequently bullets failed to exit. The he went further and tested the 270-gr .375 bullets at just over 2,400 fps MV on 20 animals (wildebeest, kudu, & zebra). All were deliberately adverse angled shots in the hope to retrieve some of the bullets. All were one shot kills and all bullets did exit.

Finn Aagaard found that his 30/06 with 165x bullets @ 2800mv, consistently out penetrated his 180gn cupcore loads, so much that it became his std. load for all manner of game in Africa and Nrth America.



[QUOTE]

Warrior,

You are probably a decent chap but you have an unfortunant habit of using 12 words when 1 will do.

Consider getting an editor

SSR

Cross L,

With the amount of mis-understanding here on AR, one has to use more than one word.
That may not apply to you, but certainly to some individuals.

But more important, let us focus on the content.

Warrior

Flesh is not fluid. If you grab a steak at the end and pull it along the table the rest will follow. Just like a piece of paper.

If you try to cut paper you will feel less resistance the faster you cut.

quote:

Originally posted by 900 SS:
If you grab a steak at the end and pull it along the table the rest will follow.

That piece of meat certainly isn't tender enough!

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:

quote:

Originally posted by 900 SS:
If you grab a steak at the end and pull it along the table the rest will follow.

That piece of meat certainly isn't tender enough!

saw some loaded 375 factory ammo today:

300 gr NP in the H&H loaded to 2530 fps and still had 2300 fpe at 300 yards with 17.1 inches drop

300 gr X loaded to 2470 and had 2700+ fpe at 300 with 17.9 inches drop.

which one has greater momentum and why?

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:
Okay, like with the SD thread, I'm bowing out of this particular discussion. I suppose we'll all just stick with whatever idea satisfies us.

I lied.
Just needed a break I guess.

quote:

saw some loaded 375 factory ammo today:

300 gr NP in the H&H loaded to 2530 fps and still had 2300 fpe at 300 yards with 17.1 inches drop

300 gr X loaded to 2470 and had 2700+ fpe at 300 with 17.9 inches drop.

which one has greater momentum and why?

The NP bullet by a hair at the muzzle, but at 300 yards the X bullet overtakes it, in terms of momentum

NP bullet: 300 x 2530 / 7000 = 108.4 ft-lbs / sec (muzzle)

X bullet: 300 x 2470 / 7000 = 105.8 ft-lbs / sec (muzzle)

Now we want to get an idea of the velocities at 300 yards. I'll say the energy figures are exact. Instead of spelling it out (which no one wants to see anyway), I'll just go on and give the downrange velocities.

1858 fps (NP) 2013 (X)

So the momentum at 300 yards for the NP is 79.6 ft-lbs / sec and for the X, 86.2.

That's how I do it for purposes of comparison. Take bullet weight, multiply by velocity and divide by 7000. Some further divide this by 32.2 (the gravitational constant), but I don't think this extra step is necessary if it's just for comparison anyway.

quote:

300 gr X loaded to 2470 and had 2700+ fpe at 300 with 17.9 inches drop.

There's a typo there. What should that '2700' have been?