I realized I never look at the energy figures in any ballistic chart and always ignore answer's on these boards that quote energy figures. Maybe I'm making a mistake.

I've always figured if you put a decent quality expanding bullet of reasonable dimension and weight in the right spot death will occur.

However, "energy" must play some part in the "light's out equasion."

What are your observations?

I tend to agree with your thinking, Brad. I've never been able to really understand how or where this "energy thing" does me any good. It always seems to come down to bullet placement and bullet performance...and THESE qualities are not necessarily dependent on this nebulous "energy" figure at all IMHO.

I think it is part of the clean kill equation, but I don't feel the "numbers" tell the whole story, and that some of the figures that state the energy required for a "clean" kill are somewhat overstated. Shot placement being much more important than the amount of energy.

Brad,
I remember some years ago reading a discussion on this issue. At the time there was a "min" energy value that was considered effective on elk and deer and they were 1600 ft-lbs. and 1200 ft-lbs respectively. These values were attributed to Col Towsend Whelen*. At a later time in his life he did say he "cojured" up these figures and just took a guess at what might be a minimum. Needless to say, deer and elk have been shot and killed with much less energy. But that is somewhat off the track of what you were talking about.

I have had some kills from rifles that totally defied description as to the effect. A mule deer shot at 375 yards totally oblivious to me dropped like lightning hit him. He was in still marginally alive when I got there and died before I put a second shot in him. He was shot with a .257 Roberts with a 115 grain Nolser Partition with a mv of 2900. The energy at 375 had to be really low. He was hit through the lungs but he was totally gone at the shot.

The year before I hit a mule deer with a 250 gr Partition out of my .338 at 150 yards with a mv of near 2800 and he ran off. He was hit thru both lungs and was looking at me as I shot. He only ran 50 yards if that and was stone dead when he dropped but the energy difference had to be tremendous between these two.

I myself don't pay much attention to energy values but it has to have to have something to do with the way they go down. I suspect that the "blood shot" quarters may be a result of high energy impacts. We need some forensic scientist hunter to log on here.

I do believe in what you say about using a quality expanding bullet though. And the "right spot" is the key. I would rather hunt with a crap bullet with it hitting him in the right place than have the best in the wrong place. As if that really needed to be even said.

*Brad, luckily I was able to correct the spelling on Whelen before my reincarnated grade school english teacher saw it. That was a close one.

[ 08-01-2002, 22:53: Message edited by: Customstox ]

Custom - You stimulate other thoughts on this subject. I'm sure you and everyone else who has hunted much has seen spectacular kills performed by rifles that "by the numbers" shouldn't even work. And by the same token we have all see animals run for miles and even escape after being shot by some ungodly "magnum deluxe." Just looking at "the numbers" these all to common events are sometimes hard to explain.

One thing we may not be taking into account here is the condition of the animal being shot. Example, the first deer I ever saw shot was hit squarely thru both shoulders by a 30/06. The bullet blew the lungs to pieces and a lot of the heart and scattered these vital organs out on the ground on the far side. This SHOULD have been a sudden death classic. Instead the deer ran like a rabbit for 150 yards and THEN dropped like a stone. In fact, I have seen jackrabbits cover 50-100 yards with more of their body shot away than they had left.

How can such things occur? Adrenalin is my explanation. I think wild animals are especially in tune with being "super charged" by adrenalin in their system.

It's been my experience that a deer that doesn't know there is any hunter or danger around can be knocked flat by a fly swatter. But the deer that is frightened and has adrenalin being main lined into his system before you fire is another matter.

IMHO there are many more factors at play in killing something than some mathematical mumbo jumbo.

I look at energy figures pretty much as meaning the bullet does or does not have the power to drive into an animal far enough to hit the boilers. Without sufficient energy, your projectile may never reach home plate. And even this can be affected by bullet performance. Too much velocity and energy can lead to blow-ups and superficial wounds.

Perhaps it boils down to experience. If you know this gun with this bullet will penetrate the required amount of muscle and bone...who cares what the energy is? It's a very illusive quality to say the least. There are a lot of dead African hunters who delivered TONS of "energy" to the animal that killed them.

[ 08-01-2002, 23:02: Message edited by: Pecos45 ]

Well I am not a scientist by any strech of the imagination, but I agree with what is being said here. It seems to me from my own experience (limited to deer) and the text book knowledge I have gathered on these forums and in books, that sufficient bullet weight for Cal., sufficient frontal diameter, sufficient "impact" velocity, and sufficient bullet construction, and excellent placement; are bigger factors in killing power than an Energy figure. Did I use the word "sufficient" enough? I say sufficient, mainly because there are NO absolutes with hunting calibers and bullet weights. The middle ground is vast and a lot of variables play into the elusive "perfect" setup.

Personally I like to see impact velocity above 2000 fps. I like to see minimal S.D. of .240 for deer and .260 for bigger game. I like frontal diameter to be at least .257 for deer and .284 for larger game. Also as S.D. increases above .280 the need for premium bullets decreases in most cases.(the various 7mm's could be an exception)

Most modern centerfire cartridges will comfortably take game out to 300 yards within these parameters. On a side note energy is usually over 1600ft LBS with cartridges from .270, 30-06 (all of the .300mags), right out to 35whelen, with in the said parameters. In other words we debate a lot of nothing!
But that is just my opinion. Flame on!

[ 08-02-2002, 17:30: Message edited by: Mark G ]

Here is another little energy question I'd like someone to answer:

If I shoot a 300 lb critter with my 450 XYZ and the bullet passes completely thru the animal, doing a lot of damage in the crossing, but then exits the far side of the animal...clips a 2" diameter tree branch on the opposite side, blows this branch off the tree and then richochets off the ground to stop Lord knows where.........exactly how much energy did my bullet transmit to the animal?

If the muzzle energy was 3,000 ft/lbs...how much did the critter receive?

(Answer: - Who the hell knows! )

[ 08-01-2002, 23:09: Message edited by: Pecos45 ]

I always kind of looked at energy figures as a way to compare one cartridge against another, but no real guage of how effective it might be on game.
I guess I always figured if the bullet didn't bounce off the hide, it would probably do what it is that bullets do if placed in the right place.- Sheister

My limited understanding of this subject is that energy is just a by-product of certain types of violent or even more-or-less-non-violent events some of which can kill an animal. There is not a lot of energy expended within or without the body of an animal when slitting its throat, yet it gets very dead. Animals can be put down by scrambling their brains, even with a .22, by severing the spinal cord, by causing massive bleeding anywhere, although it's a lot more likely to be massive and timely (for the hunter) in the heart-lung area. All of these events are related only marginally to energy, except MAYBE the heart-lung shot. Severing things has, first, to do with getting to them. In the ranges within which we are discussing, this has to do with sectional density, bullet construction (including shape), caliber & velocity. Now, you don't have bullets or sectional density without mass, and I already mentioned velocity, so since energy has some relation to mass x the squared velocity, there will be some energy number involved in every stopping/killing event. I have seen no evidence that energy relates better to success (from the POV of the hunter) of these events than the factors mentioned above. There is no scientific theory that has any support from factual data that energy is directly, or even monotonically, related to effectiveness in cartridges. Most of the readers of this thread, and experienced hunters since Taylor's time or long before, have sure knowledge from their own experience and/or the experience of their friends that there are energy/effectiveness inversions in existing cartridges, that is, there are cartridges with greater energy than others that, nevertheless, are more effective. In the extreme, one could punch a (tied-up) bear in the chest until he had expended far more energy than the .22 in the brain or even the .338 in the heart that would kill him. The bear would be pissed off, but not likely hurt much. QED. Probably the reason for energy's uselessness is that it overemphasizes velocity and ignores penetration and placement. But there was probably never any reason in the first place to consider it, except that it was around.

"Exactly where do you think you dropped it, sir?"
"Down at the end of this block."
"Well, why, in God's name, are you looking for it here?"
"Well, the light is much better here."

Geez, that was an awfully long drawn-out way to say, "Energy doesn't mean shit."

[ 08-02-2002, 00:19: Message edited by: Recono ]

Some darn good thought's here, everyone.

After thinking about this more since posting this morning, I think my original stance is really the "right" one.

Energy is a by-product of velocity and mass, not a "means" but rather a "result." (Ok, I'm not a techie, so give this slow Norwegian a break!) We "basllistic types" like to break everything down into its various parts and try to assign significance to each "part." That approach, while "fun", doesn't always work or leave the correct impressions.

Chic, I didn't know the "minimum ft. lbs. rule" had been contrived by T. Whelen. Gunwriter's of the past have certainly have left a trail of mythology for us to sort through! Thank God you spelled his name correctly... your hard-boiled teacher sounds like a formidable ghost!

Anyway, by way of illustration, I've shot deer-sized stuff with the 270 and 308. In the 270 I've always used high velocity 130 or 140 grain bullets. In the 308 I've always used 150 or 165 grain bullets in carbine length barrels. Regardless, the 270 only delivers very-slightly more energy, yet it's lightning-like kills on critters is MUCH more dramatic than the 308. Everything I've ever shot with the 308 ran off to die, whereas nealy any deer-sized beast with the 270 goes down as if plugged into 440.

Brad

Brad,

Those 308s are not as quick because of expansion.

But stick a quick expander in like the 130 in 308, especially the Speer Hollow point and will drop roos and medium size pigs like lightning bolts.

The faster the energy is released the more power you have since power is the rate at which work is done.

Lesving aside calibers like 375 and 458s with soft flat noses, the best killing and "drop on the spot" caliber I have used is the 308 with bullets that use to be made in Australia at the 140 and 150 grain weights. Semi pointed, big lead tips and real "bombs away" stuff.

Mike

Pecos, you nailed it!!!

If a Super-Nitro-Ultra-Mega-Magnum blows through an animal and clear-cuts half the forest behind the critter.... How much "energy" actually went into the target?!!! You know, bowhunters are not permitted to hunt big game with field points, but in this case, what's the difference? A hole is a hole is a hole. Doesn't matter how it got there.

Discussion of energy is a moot point. HOWEVER, the topic of energy transfer via the construction of the bullet is VERY worthwhile! Yet it is a distant fourth place to the topics of marksmanship, hunting prowess, and shot placement.

That said, for all the big game found in Colorado, I prefer higher velocity bullets that are lighter, expand rapidly, and have a reasonable chance of NOT exiting the animal. They are what work very, very well for me.

I like this thread because I think its a good question. I believe the general rules of thumb reguarding nessesary energy for terminal performance were probably set forth very well by the likes of Col. Whelen and others of his time, and are held in high esteem in most all shooting litrature today, heres why. You want to know how much energy you need to take this animal or that one? Dont ask the guys who get their animal to drop on the first shot every time, chances are theyve got enough gun. or the ones who swear that a 220 swift is miraculous on large deer, (remember that?) Those sort of stories will be around forever.
Ask the ones who have placed their shots well and had to do it repeatedly, ie; didnt have enough gun. Like the other deer hunters with the 220 swifts, or the pioneers who battled bears and buff with their 30-30s (or worse ). Im sure at the time they were being charged they would have appreciated MORE GUN!

That is the sort of experience that has formed the basis of the "old school standards" (for lack of a better term) and I think its important to remember that. The standards set forth by our predessors were established not by scientists or lab tests but from real world experience. People have died so we could know how to have a safe happy and humane hunt, heres to them!

[ 08-02-2002, 08:36: Message edited by: Wstrnhuntr ]

To me the energy helps when a bullet does not get to take the easy path, same could be said of S.D. I guess.
But on a good broadside shot it doesn't take much energy-I guess I feel like when the lungs are blown up what else is the critter gonna do but expire. ( I shot an elk with my 22/250 at 275 a couple of years ago, I knew exactly where the bullet would go, it went there and the elk died toot sweet-not much energy there but more than enough to get inside and scramble the lungs)
I do believe that speed does kill in a much quicker manner than energy, which I do think most would agree.

Have a super day and "GET TO THE HILL"

Dog

P.S. I had a super day fishing the Tobacco Roots and am gonna float the Jellystone on Saturday-grins

Mike, I'm quite certain you're right about those 130's in the 308 Win... sort of turns it into a "drop on the spot" 270!

WesternHunter... nice post... well said.

Mark D... our phone conversation the other night about velocity astually inspired me to start this thread. There is something rather "magical" about velocity placed in the "sweet spot"! Glad you had some good fishing in the Roots... I'm taking Deb and the kids out for a day-hike Sunday in the Absaroka's... they don't realize it's an elk-scouting excursion!

Buenos Noche,

BA

Hi Brad...another "slow Norwegian" joining in
First..I have never paid any big attention to the energy figures. As Waldog says; a hole is a hole is a hole !
Anyway..in my neighbourhood many reed deer hunters swear by the 308 loaded with soft 150 gr bullets. They state that thouse bullets usually stays in the deer and therfore "dumping all the ENERGY in the animal" !!
It anchors them faster thay say. It could be...??

I much prefere a through and trough shot, because spooring a deer with just a entering hole is a lot harder than when you get an exit wound as well. More blood, lung and heart tissues on the ground. ( usually , not always ).

Buth then...if a light fragile bullet anchore the deer on the spot because of the "energy release", then you dont have to spoor or track the deer, it stays right there thay say, thouse smart friends of mine....

In my school, what kills a beast is eighter loss of blood pressure because of severe disruption of blood wessel, a brain shot or a spine shot.
Not some mystichal energy that literally shakes or beat the animal to death in a nanosecond.
(Perhaps Overkill has another explanation since he is looking into that stopping issue wery hard ).

I�m comfortable with a good bullet that drill a hole through the animal doing a lot of tissue damage when doing so, living me a good blood trail in case I have to spoor.
And here I�m taking big game hunting, not warmint or small game when calibers such as 22-250, 222 and other sizzlers plays devastating effect on the small critters.

Energy... well another number to ponder about, but it dosn�t take my good sleep away.
I stick to my good bullets, bullet placement, through shots and do the spooring if neccesary.

( I suddenly remember somthing I learnt when sniper training in the army. During the WWII the allied doctors found out that soldiers shot trough the torso from the side, penetrating or damaging both body halves, almost always died.
Thouse who where shot from eigther front or rear in the torso damaging only one body halve, was often saved. It had to do with the damage of the nerve system. Sort of damaging only half of the wiring contra all of it.
The conclusion should than be that a fully penetrating side shot is the optimum )

Y'all need to take a look at Harald's site which covers it all.

I think Haralds site basicaly says:-

Energy is basicaly a function of velocity and it is velocity plus bullet construction which basicaly determines bullet expansion which basicaly determines wound channel length and diameter. It is the wound channel that kills.

An interesting detail is the type of damage to the blood vessels, cleanly cut arteries self seal to a much lesser degree than ragged tears. It is just possible that this might account for some anomolies such as my slowish 140gr SP killing roe deer better than my quicker and faster expanding ballistic tip.

From the statistics section it is apparent that you need a shed load of data to come to any meaningful conclusions.

Harald used a 338WM for caribou - I guess he goes for the belt and braces approach

Anyhow read it and learn it is very very good.

Tables, eeech!
They are only a guide. Velocity, is only a component of energy. I don't think either matters much to the animal, and niether matters as much as placement of the shot. Penetration is important, good wound channel is important. I like to see two holes, but that's my opinion. I think there are too many variables to single out one thing as being the MUST HAVE for a clean kill.

I place little emphasis on energy figures since a 22-250 can have the same engergy figure as a big bore elephant rifle...

What determines "killing power" is destruction of bone and tissue and blood loss...cutting off oxygen to the brain and causeing a stroke I suppose..

Pretty darn basic if you cut the BS......

An animal dies by the loss of oxygen to the brain. It does not matter the cause (where or how or with what) the mechanism of death is loss of oxygen to the brain. The two most common ways this is accomplished.
1. Decrease the amount of oxygen the blood can carry. Disease, certain organ failures, poisons etc are ways that this happens.
2. Decrease the blood supply to the brain. When an animal is shot (with whatever tool is at hand) the result we are trying to achieve is the loss of blood supply to the brain. This usually takes from 10 to 30 seconds to happen.

How fast an animal dies is a direct relationship to how fast the blood supply is lost. The reason a double lung shot is so effective is it works on both 1 and 2 and the same time. By hitting both lungs you are removing the ability of the body to put oxygen into the blood stream (number 1) and at the same time causing massive bleeding (number 2). A larger hole in the lungs will cause faster bleeding and thus a faster death. This is why a small high speed rapid expanding bullet (like a 55 grain 22-250) that gets into the lungs and blows up can sometimes cause a faster death than a big slow moving bullet that does not do as much damage to the lungs. The problem with this is that a small high-speed rapid expanding bullet may NOT always penetrate enough to get into the lungs where as a larger slower expanding bullet almost always will.

Almost everybody that has hunted has seen the “instantaneous” kills. IMHO this is incorrect. The process I described above is still happening, just with the “shock” factor thrown in. Shock itself does nothing to kill the animal; the loss of oxygen to the brain by loss of blood does the killing. What shock does is temporarily or permanently paralyzes the animal while the blood loss is happening. Some animals are more susceptible to shock than others. For example shock affects a deer much more than an elk. If you really watch what happens after you see an animal drop instantly you will see this happen. The animal will still be alive when it hits the ground but will be unable to move very much. The loss of blood will kill it in a few seconds before the paralysis has worn off.

My whole dissertation above is my long-winded way of saying that IMHO too much emphasis is put into the energy figures. A very low energy gun if used correctly to produce massive bleeding is just as effective as a very high-energy gun.

Russ

Brad, energy (read "energy transfer") is the bedrock stuff of killing power; all other factors being equal. If that wasn't so, then we could assume that the old .45-70 cartridge was just as good as the .458 Lott for elephants, and that the old .30-30 was just about as good as the .30-06 for general hunting, and that the old 7X57 Mauser hit stuff just as hard as does the 7mm Remington Magnum. Not so........

Remember: If you double a bullet's weight, you double its energy. If you double its velocity, you QUADRUPLE its energy.

You routinely hear guys (on these very forums, no less) say that the "only" advantage the .300 magnums have over the .30-06 is a somewhat flatter trajectory. What these boobs fail to include in their brilliant dissertations is that the .300s hit harder and deliver more energy at all ranges as well, and thus they have more killing power at all distances no matter how you carre to flavor the stew - wishful thinking be damned!

AD

I have to respectfully desagree with Allen. Energy does not do the killing, tissue destruction does. My wife shoots a 308 win using 180 grain bullets at around 2600 fps. Anybody can agree that is not a speedster. She has taken several elk and quite a few deer and antelope with one shot with that gun and load. She limits her shots to less than 250 yards and is perfectly deadly. A few years ago we both shot elk the same week. She shot hers at about 100 yards with her 308. The shot went completely threw the elk and the elk went about 3 steps and went down. I shot mine with a 338 win mag 250 grain at about 150 yards. The elk went about 5 steps and went down. If energy means so much why did the 308 kill the elk just as fast as the 338? The answer is the 308 had more than enough tissue distruction at the distance to kill the elk cleanly. The extra "energy" of the 338 did not do me any good at the distances involved becasue the tissue distruction was about the same as the 308. If the distance was increased to 400 yards then the extra "energy" could make a difference because I would have more tissue distruction than the 308.

I think perhaps the reason that many seem to be disenchanted with energy figures is because most people are over gunned, like the guy who made a post recently about taking whitetails with a 338 Mag and wanted suggestions for bullets.
Cryin out loud man, its a friggin bear gun on a scrony whitetail! Just give it the closest thing you have to a varmint load and have at it..
As Mtnelkhunter stated, a 308 will suffice for most North american game, and today it is considered relativley weak. Not too many people seem to be content with a gun thats "just right" for their quarry anymore. They want their bullet to rip through game like crap through a goose at 600 yds away if nesesary. No, energy shouldnt be a problem there.

Now try a 243 on a large Bear and then tell me how energy does not kill.. Without sufficent energy where is the tissue damage going to come from? If all we needed is speed we would all be shooting ultra velocity nail guns..

Ray,

I dont know what your feeding that 22-250 of yours but I show that one with a 70 grain sp @ 3300 fs makes 1692 ftlbs at the muzzle. A 416 Rem mag with a 400 grn @ 2400 fs will make 5116 ft lbs of energy.. ??

Size matters.

I'm not overly impressed with energy figures. Womens figures are somthing to admire.

I have dropped deer dead from a single shot from a .257 Roberts and put two through a deer with my 7mm RM. I watched the Rem Mag hit deer after the first shot walk close to 60 yards, knowing it was a good hit. At the second hit it staggered and then went down. Clearly the 7mm RM has by far more energy than the Roberts but the results were the opposite of what one would expect. It wasn't a monster of a buck either. Both have worked well and I still use them both. Not every deer dies the same each time for each rifle. There are to many differences to expect exactly the same results.
As long as there is enough energy to cause the bullet to expand properly there is enough energy. Velocity is nice and makes for enough energy at a greater distance. A clean kill is made by placing a proper bullet for the task and rifle in the right spot.
Some would argue both ends of this but I think that by en large most hype about the new mags' is marketing!

The ultra mags are pointless unless you are able to place a bullet perfectly at 700 yards. Closer can be done with less blast, recoil, and expense. I don't get the point of many arguements about which cal is better because most game animals are taken so close that most any legal cal would work.

I do have and use two mag rifles. But by todays school of thought they are both basically standard level performance. Ones obviously the 7mm Rem Mag and the other a .338 Win Mag. The .338 is in my opinion one of the best for Elk size animals and the 7mm can pull double duty without worry. I have an '06 that rarely sees daylight. A 308 carbine that mostly bounces around in the jeep. A .280 NIB (won a drawing)and a .30-30 ( first rifle). Still one of my favorite deer rifles is the .257 Roberts. It's energy is mediocre. Am I just missing the point? Is an energy calculation worth $.02? What works is what works. Some work better in certain circumstances but most can work if the hunter knows what he's shooting and what he's shooting at.

Allen,

I am not sure you are 100% correct on energy increasing killing power.

my observations with lead core bullets is that there seems to be about 3 velocity levels.

1200 or so

2000 or so

2600 to maybe 2800 or so

The difference between a 22 long Rifle and 22 magnum is dramatic. Same thing with 400 Speer 458s at 1300 and 2000. Some of this obviously relates to expansion, but I have hollow pointed the 400 Speers so they are like big pistol bullets.

The difference between the 22 Magnum and 218 Bee is dramatic.

At the 2600 or 2800 level, I think things then become different.

I have used the 218 Bee and 22/250 on knagaroos and have probably shot over 1000 of them with these calibers and to me the 218 Bee was superior. Others have found the same.

We also found the same sort of thing in the late 60s when we moved from the 303/25, factory loaded with 87 grains at 2650, and the 303/270 for which we use to get about 2800 f/s with 100 grain bullet seated over the 303 cordite military load, and moved to the 243 and 270 Winchester.

Obviously extra energy must do some thing but I wonder if it goes into extra pulverising of the same area. For example, does it matter whether the shoulder is broken or the heart ripped apart as compared to each being atomised.

To illustrate the point, if you shoot house bricks with a 458 and 500 grainers at 1500 f/s you will bust up more brick than a 6mm/06 will do and with about the same energy. The 6mm/06 will use much of its energy to turn the brick material into dust that is like talcolm powder but it won't "destroy or ruin" as much material.

My experience with Barnes X and Failsafes is quite limited but from that little experience and from a mate's 4 trips to Africa, I think on both small and larger animals, these bullets may give a better reflection of increased energy than is the case for lead core bullets.

On pigs, I have used the 303, 308 and 300 Winchester a great deal. If anything, the 303 and 308 are the quicker killers. Undoubtedly some of that relates to bullet expansion. Perhaps with the quick expanding bullets the 300 Win opens to early and perhaps it opens too slow with the harder bullets.

Mike

Wow! I've stayed up past my bed time to read all the good posts on this subjects and the one thing that's sure clear is we are all chasing a greased pig with this topic and no one has been able to catch it. But we are close! (I think)

What have we learned IMHO?
1. "Energy" is a by-product of velocity and mass, generally enhanced by diameter.
2. The AMOUNT of this illusive energy transmitted to the game is never going to be the same twice.
3. I THINK the real value of "energy" is simply to guarantee that if the projectile can hold itself together, that there is enough force there to guarantee penetration to the desired spot, i.e. thru both sides of the critter.
4. When you think about it "energy" is really just a mathematical number. Some geek with a sliderule figured out many moons ago we could multiply the velocity times the bullet weight in our little nifty formula and come out with this thing the geek called "energy." What I'm saying is "energy" is something of an CREATION
What is real is the bullet...the bullets weight and diameter...and the velocity. These are all tangible things you can measure. To me, energy is smoke and mirrors. I know it is relevent...but in my mind only to provide some guarantee of potential penetration.
5. I don't think "energy" plays a hoot in hell with killing. I think in most instances there is probably very little of this energy actually transmitted to the animal.
6. What kills is PLACEMENT, PENETRATION and BULLET PRFORMANCE. (Which is another way of saying what some of you have already said about destroying the vitals.)

Has anyone ever seen the video of the fellow who puts on a couple of bullet proof vests and then stuffs a thick phone book behind this and then lets a fellow put a .308 to his chest and pull the trigger? I have seen this demonstration and I would make the following points.
1. The guy take 100% of the hit and energy from the .308.
2. The "energy" delivered to him is about a TON.
3.Instead of knocking him over like a bowling pin, it only rocks him back on his heels. All the energy does to the crazy guy is a gentle shove.

So much for energy. The name of the game is placement, penetration and bullet performance. Just what cartridge it takes to kill this or that game is basically putting together a combination of variables to produce penetration and performance.

And I think that's about as close as I can come to an answer.

Pecos45,

Energy is neither enhanced or diminished by diameter.

Also, energy has nothing do with force.

Having gotten that out of the way, I think your main line of bullet performance, placement and penetration is the key factor on bigger animals because our guns are just not big enough.

A thought. At 300 yards a 257 Magnum or 300 Magnum will hit much closer to the aiming point than a 375.

If we were talking about pigs, the 375 or 458 with soft bullets offer overwhelming power, but not so for animals the size of Zebra.

I have never done it, but I do believe I could drop more Zebra on the spot with a 257 Magnum than I could with a 375 or 416. For kangaroos or pigs I could drop more on the spot with a 375 and soft bullets.

Mike

Mike, you are quite right that energy is not enhanced by bullet diameter. It was almost 2:00 a.m. when I wrote the above post and my brain was not firing on all cylinders. What I was trying to get out in my addled state of being at that late hour was that the "killing effect" of a bullet is generally enhanced by increasing the size of the projectile.

I think one of the key things in "killing power" or should I better say "killing EFFECT" is the size of the wound channel. This is why a larger bullet has an advantage over a smaller bullet right out of the box. If both bullets are going to do NOTHING but penetrate the critter, obviously the one with the larger diameter will do more harm.

Now if we factor in the fact that bullets are going to mushroom or perhaps even explode at some point, the equation can change rapidly. A small bullet that expands can suddenly start doing as much or more damage than a larger bullet that doesn't expand. A bullet that "explodes" can do horrific damage if it does so in the right area.

However, a smaller bullet is only capable of creating just so much of a wound channel simply by virtue of its small size. Sooner or later you run out of bullet fragments flying around inside an animal. When that happens the party is over. Obviously with larger animals, this means that a larger bullet simply PROVIDES the POTENTIAL for a greater wound channel, i.e. a more deadly wound.........assuming bullet performance is equal.

And to take this a step further, what my rambling above is getting at is the reason why we need to increase the size of our bullet as the size of our animal increases.....or we can avoid this for awhile by placing our shots with greater and greater precision. This is how people kill elephants with rifles most would consider inadequate for mule deer or elk.

If you (or me) CANNOT guarantee this greater level of accuracy...then we'd better start bringing bigger and bigger guns. I tend to be skeptical of your claim that you could drop more Zebra with a .257 magnum of some sort than you could with a .375. I have no doubt you could produce some spectacular kills...IF the Zebra would stand still and allow you to produce the necessary precision. But for running, twisting, turning, take-um-as-you-find-them and make the best of it sort of shooting, I think the .257 prediction would leave you very disappointed and out tracking a lot of wounded Zebra.

WHY? It gets back to "Wound Channel." Again, all things being more or less equal about bullet performance, the .257 is never going to be able to produce as large a wound channel as a .375 in a fair sized animal.

Let me confess here, Mike, that like you I've never shot a zebra either and if the guys who have want to contradict me here, that's fine. I will bow to their experience.

I think where many of us hunters may get led astray in the battle over small calibers VS large calibers gets back to bullet performance.
Example. We have a small animal...a whatever. We shoot this whatever with a small caliber rifle...say a .243. The small animal is immediately very dead. Next we shoot another small animal with our trusty .375 or .458 and we expect the small animal to instantly be really, REALLY DEAD! But instead the critter staggers around a bit and finally spins in to die 20 feet away. Things like this tend to make small caliber guys like me think that small caliber rifles are as deadly or perhaps even MORE SO than much larger rifles. (IF we can place our shots well, we are quick to add this disclaimer.)

What this scenario totally overlooks is bullet performance. The .243 bullet hit the little critter and went off like a bomb inside him. The .458 bullet just knocked a hole thru both sides of him. In fact, the .458 bullet hardly knew it had even hit anything!

But if we pit a small caliber against a large caliber rifle...and put them shooting large game, say your zebra...then I think the small caliber rifle will lose most of the contests simply because it is incapable of generating the larger wound channel.

Now I'm gonna shut up. I feel like a dog chasing his tail trying to explain this. I think all of us pretty well understand this subject but as all of us have discovered, it's hard to put into words. I shall be quite now and let those with far more experience and know how speak.

My PACT chronograph has a KE calculator bundled with it, for as they say,"those who believe in fairy tales".
Jeff

Guys...!

When a bullet expand and leave energy. Does it explod blood vessels then...? I have shoot mooses with 6,5 x 55 and that is a little bullet. And the lungs have been exploded. And the same with the heart. When you open a animal that you have shoot in the shoulder. It can be black "dead meat" around the bullet hole. And I think that when the bullet expand it explod blood vessels because of the pressure. "energy transfer" Animals are full of blood "full of water" so I think this can be possible.

What do you think guys...!

Naturally there is a prefered method to promptly dispatching ones quarry, but Ft lbs of energy correctly applied is EXACTLY what kills them. With no energy the bullet just sits in the chamber and that will not cause tissue damage.

Velocity and mass combine to create energy, penetration and tissue damage is a "bi-product of energy". Typically the greater the amount of energy the greater the damage will be IF all of the energy is expended on the animal as opposed to shooting out an exit hole.

The fundamental problem here is that we are rolling two different issues into one. The importance of energy and the causes of death are two different topics. While I admit that Im not to keen on reasons why death occurs when shot, I do understand what energy is and its role in causing wound channels and tissue damage. Without enough of it death aint gonna happen, that much I do know.

Obviously bullet wounds kill, and sometimes small ones do not. Therefore it seems logical to me that a larger more destructive one will kill more efficently.

[ 08-04-2002, 03:33: Message edited by: Wstrnhuntr ]

Westrhunter,
Maybe that was a too quick and poorly stated example, but I was trying to make the point that velocity could give a poor big game rifle a very good rating in energy figures...

Sometimes I expect folks to understand what I'm saying and that isn't always the case I'm sure, and I admit it was incorrect and could have been better stated had I looked up some velocity and energy figures I could have come up with a better example. I just get posting lazy.

Elastic collisions are governed by the energy equation: Energy =1/2XmassXvelocityXvelocity. Inelastic collisions are governed by the momentum equation: momentum = massXvelocity. Collisions that are purely elastic or purely inelastic rarely occur outside of a lab. Tearing tissue causes a loss of momentum. Stretching tissue causes a loss of energy. Imparting a velocity to tissue causes a loss of energy. Expanding or fracturing a bullet causes a loss of momentum (this is expended on the bullet not the tissue).
Both a loss of momentum and a loss of energy cause a loss of velocity, but mass plays a more important role in the momentum equation. I hope this clears everything up for you.

Clear as Mud Bucktail!

Actually I do understand these princibles as science, but have never been able to prove the figures have a definitive line as far as killing effect. I guess I lack the literary eloquence to explain what I think. I've had great results with both smaller caliber high velocity rounds and bigger slower rounds on the same type animal. No two kills are identical and yet the energy figures would have people believe the lesser round would be prone to failure, or that the larger caliber at a much higher energy level should work like the hammer of Thor. Sometimes a particular round seems to work better than the numbers would indicate. IMO the .257 Roberts is one of these.
This is interesting and I do have an open mind if someone can teach me what I'm missing. Hopefully it's not like a sieve!

Stop it bucktail. You are starting to make me nervous. I actually understood what you said.

Pecos45,

You well be right about my claim on Zebra and the 257.

However, by best shooting mate has been to Africa 4 times and has shot a little of 100 plains game, with many of them being Zebra, Kudu, Gemsbock and Wildebeeste.

He has used Barnes X bullets and the 2 calibers he used the most were the 257 Wby and 300 Wby.

What he basically found was that neither caliber could produce drop on the spot results but neither calibe failed either. He has also shot Elk in Australia which is shot on what you would call a ranch (I think) like you where you Afrcian animals in Texas.

The net result was he has a pair of 257 Wbys set up but is now looking to change to 264, based on the one rifle he has in that caliber so far. However, the potential advantages to the 264 relate more to bullet availability in terms of bombing roos and pigs.

His conclusion, which of course might be totally wrong, is that on these larger animals like Zebra, you would probably need to go up to a 416 or 460 to get real big improvement in drop down power or results.

Mike

Can the energy transfer explod blood vessels? when the bullet expand and leave energy. The same as to shoot at a barrel of water.??

[ 08-04-2002, 13:54: Message edited by: Overkill ]