As posted by By Savage 99 Posted 15 March 2006 07:55

It's a matter of proportion. The bigger or tougher and animal gets then more effect is required.


So it could be from a larger caliber bullet or other things that contribute to effect on game.


So I ask, which effect? Muzzle energy, bigger bullet or just what? The following are approximate ratios of bullet to game weights. Of course none of the vaunted animal toughness characteristics can be applied here.

Animal weight to bullet weight ratio:

8 pounds bullet 55 grains : 1,018 to 1

50 pounds " 80 " : 4,375 to 1

175 pounds " 150 " : 8,166 to 1

350 pounds " 180 " : 13,611 to 1

500 pounds " 225 " : 15,556 to 1

1200 pounds " 250 " : 33,600 to 1

2000 pounds " 300 " : 46,667 to 1
2000 pounds " 400 " : 35,000 to 1
2000 pounds " 500 " : 28,000 to 1

3000 pounds " 400 " : 52,500 to 1
3000 pounds " 500 " : 42,000 to 1

10,000 LBS " 300 " : 233,333 / 1
10K Jumbo " 400 " : 175,000 / 1
Ele again " 500 " : 140,000 / 1
& again " 750 " : 93,333 / 1

quote:

8 pounds bullet 55 grains : 1,018 to 1
50 pounds " 80 " : 4,375 to 1
175 pounds " 150 " : 8,166 to 1
350 pounds " 180 " : 13,611 to 1
500 pounds " 225 " : 15,556 to 1
1200 pounds " 250 " : 33,600 to 1
2000 pounds " 300 " : 46,667 to 1
2000 pounds " 400 " : 35,000 to 1 2000 pounds " 400 " : 35,000 to 1
2000 pounds " 500 " : 28,000 to 1 2000 pounds " 500 " : 28,000 to 1
3000 pounds " 400 " : 52,500 to 1
3000 pounds " 500 " : 42,000 to 1 3000 pounds " 500 " : 42,000 to 1
10,000 LBS " 500 " : 233,333 / 1

can someone do a graph for me. Use excell and plot the numbers as follows.....I'm poor at excell.
8,55
50,80
175,150
350,180
500,225
1200,250
2000,300
3000,400
10000,500

I edited the original data by striking out the repeat weights and making the last figure (in bold) more realistic of a 10,000 pound animal.

I believe one will see that there is a reasonably continuous curve to the line suggesting some validity to the data.

It would be my guess that the line is not well represented by linearity because as we get bigger targets the penetration factor far and away takes over in the performance. Smaller targets are harvested with more shock and trauma channels but large animals (except for brain shots) are taken by penetration to deeper inland vital organs and blood loss.

I've seen a good chest shot on whitetails drop them in their tracks but I'd bet that even a great chest shot on an ele would cause it to run a hundred or two yards before loss of oxygen to the brain causes death.

Vapodog, I'm sure you realize that the 300 = .375, and 400 = .416, and of course this was for example only. Energy figures were not input because they are a function of velocity. Bullet construction and the obvious variety of penetrating characteristics will raise hell as well. Thanks for the follow on!

quote:

I'm sure you realize that the 300 = .375, and 400 = .416,

No, I didn't. I thought it was 300 grains, 400 grains etc.

Personally, I think we make too much of relatively minor differences, but, hey, that's because we're a site of enthusiasts. Assuming we're talking about using the same style bullet, a larger bullet has several advantages over a smaller bullet. Some of them may be theoretical.

- A larger bullet within the same case family, 30-06 v. 270, for instance, will allow the use of more powder for a given weight. That might not generate more kinetic energy, as energy rises with half the square of velocity. It does, however, provide something shooters have been trying to quantify for some time, though it's hard to say just what. More powder behind a heavier bullet must be good for something, even if it's not "energy," per se.

- Looking just at bullets, relatively small increases in bullet diameter allow allow significant increases in bullet weight due to the ability to add to bullet mass in both diameter and length.

- This increase in weight (actually "mass") adds little to terminal effect when entering an animal, but increases significantly as the bullet begins to transform from an aerodynamic body to its final form, e.g., mushroom. The longer bullet provides more "stem" on which the mushroom can perch, allowing a greater diameter head than a smaller round. This shape crushes large amounts of animal matter.

- Larger mass staying together has a better chance of breaking heavy bones while still remaining intact and so continuing its journey.

- A bullet's "continued journey" contributes to an exit wound on a heavier animal, allowing a blood trail, should it be needed. (This shouldn't be confused with a large exit wound from a fragile bullet at higher speeds on lighter game, which might be an unreliable indicator for larger game as it might the result of several parts of a bullet exiting independently.)

- A larger bullet's exit might be reliably large enough to pprevent animal fat and hair from closing the wound and hiding a blood trail.

- A larger, heavier bullet might sometimes imply a relatively slower bullet for the caliber, which is easier to manufacture for repeated reliablity for penetration and performance than a faster bullet.

OTOH, while I have heard the arguments for larger bullets as safety margin for imperfect shots, I'm skeptical. The larger, heavier bullet will allow better pentration to reach the vitals from sub-optimum angles, but if it misses the vitals on the way through, the extra bullet mass does no good. Arguably, a deer gut-shot with a 375 will travel essentially as far as a deer gut-shot with a 243. Thus, the aphorism, "Use the largest rifle you can shoot accurately." The larger bullet may seldom or never be needed, but it's an edge - what? 2%? - that we've recognized for years.

Jaywalker

Vapodog, you are right about the grains, but those are also the more common for the above calibers.