It has long been writen by various pundits in the US that a cartridge providing at least 1000 ft pounds of impact energy is adequate for deer size game. For elk, our resident experts advocate a cartridge providing at least 1500 ft/lbs of energy at impact.
At the risk of offending legions of hunters, I think this is ABSOLUT HOGWASH.
Let us consider the implications of the importance of "terminal energy" delivered by a specific cartridge.
If 1000 ft/lbs is adequate for a 200 lb deer, then, by extrapolation,a minimum of 5000 ft/lbs would be necessary for a 1000lb elk; (416 RIGBY, ANYONE) and 10,000 ft pounds would be a minimum for a 2000lb buffalo,(577 TREX); also 60,000 ft/lbs for an elephant bull.
if this were true, we would be using field guns or 3omm Vulcan cartridges to successfully take elephant!
Clearly, this is not true; even with heart and chest shots, elephant have been reliably harvested with calibers in the 404 jeffrey range (about 4000 ft/lbs energy)
So whats important?
In a few words, PENETRATION and BULLET PLACEMENT;
if a projectile of adequate diameter penetrates to a vital area (brain, heart, etc) that is all that is required.
What then is the importance of bigger calibers? If the bullet MISSES the vital areas, a larger, heavier, more energetic bullet will cause greater tissue damage and lead to earlier demise of the animal.
So, if we are able to place our shots well, we only need a 375/404 (a la Saeed) or 416 (Tony Sanchez Arrino) for elephant.
I will adress my thoughts on deer size game in the next post (dont want everyone falling asleep)
What is the opinion of our experienced DGR hunters? Love to hear comments, my african experience is limited to 6 safaris, and most of the contributors have a lot more practical experience.
Let the games (and contoversies begin!)

You make an interesting observation. It always amazes me how small my cartridges are compared to elephant, especially when I'm holding a .458" 450gr or 500gr solid I've recovered. Then I think of a 30-06 or even a 243win and a whitetail and can't escape the thought I'm overgunned for the deer or undergunned for the elephant.

On the other hand, tracking an elephant with a relatively small hole in his heart and lungs is a heck of a lot easier than trailing a whitetail that leaves little blood trail, even if the shot is through the heart and lungs, at least in my neck of the woods. And of course the African trackers are so beyond my ability that it is a marvel to observe.

Still, I know that each cartridge I've selected for the respective game will do the trick as humanely as possible.

JPK

Penetration and placement are needed but also power (energy).

Larger diameter bullets cause more damage and hence quicker death.

Larger diameter bullets require more energy to get the equivalent penetration.

A 600 NE would be a certain killer on whitetails from any angle. I am certain no man could shoot the equivalent "elephant gun."

Most wind up shooting as much gun as they can and hope for the best.

Just because some rifle is capable of killing some animal doesn't mean squat. Screwed up shots are not exactly rare, and sufficient, not immediately lethal, damage to at least slow the animal down requires a bigger gun.

I have to laugh at these posts that demand to know "What is the minimum caliber?", and the typical replies "a 243 will kill leopard," etc. It certainly will, but so what?

If you have not read Taylor's books (or mine!) you are not qualified to ask the question.

Energy expressed in ft-lb is a measurement at a specific point in time.

Momentum expressed in lb-f/s is a rate, a measurement taken over time.

People argue over which is a better measure of “killing power†when both contribute in different ways.

Sectional density contributes to penetration and cross sectional area contributes to the radius of the wound channel.

High SD plus a high rate of momentum yields better penetration.

High energy figures plus a fatter bullet leaves a bigger hole.

Indlov,
Your methodology is flawed, or maybe you are just bored. Why would you think that doing a linier extrapolation based on body weight would make any sense?
Leaving out for a minute that a 1000 pound elk is a monster and a 200 pound whitetail in my part of the world is a doe, we can let your 5-1 ratio stand for a second. Do you think for a second that a bullet has to penetrate or destroy 5 times as much elk as whitetail to kill it? A bullet that penetrates 18 inches on a deer is going to be flying through air, and a bullet that penetrates 2 feet on an elk is going to do the same. If you did your extrapolation with a tape measure instead of a weigh scale it might come out a little bit closer.
Energy probably isn't the best indicator of killing ability, but the 1000/ 1500/ 4000 fp guideline isn't a bad approximation or effort to put a number on something that observation has long proven to be true.

I appreciate your statement that a linear extrapolation is not good methodology (are u an engineer? mathematician? BUT there is little doubt that there is a positive correlation between animal weight and the degree of bullet penetration required for a complete pass through. I cant write an equation to describe the relationship, but most will agree it is there. So we are in esence saying the same thing; PENETRATION is whats important (Bill clinton said the same thing also!)
Energy is also loosely correlated to penetration, within the parameters of modern hunting calibers. (A 404 softnose is more energetic than a 308)
I would also submit that these relationships, when carried to extremes, dont really make sense (ie a softball or a micro-meteorite travelling @ 25,000fps)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dogleg:
Indlov,
Your methodology is flawed, or maybe you are just bored. Why would you think that doing a linier extrapolation based on body weight would make any sense?
Leaving out for a minute that a 1000 pound elk is a monster and a 200 pound whitetail in my part of the world is a doe, we can let your 5-1 ratio stand for a second. Do you think for a second that a bullet has to penetrate or destroy 5 times as much elk as whitetail to kill it? A bullet that penetrates 18 inches on a deer is going to be flying through air, and a bullet that penetrates 2 feet on an elk is going to do the same. If you did your extrapolation with a tape measure instead of a weigh scale it might come out a little bit closer.
Energy probably isn't the best indicator of killing ability, but the 1000/ 1500/ 4000 fp guideline isn't a bad approximation or effort to put a number on something that observation has long proven to be true.[/QUOTE]

Not this crap again!! Alright it is true size doesn't matter! It is how you use it that counts. A 45-70 is far better than a 505 Gibbs, and a 300 RUM is better than the 45-70, etc, etc, culminating in the awesome effectiveness of the 5.56X45 NATO.

Two anaimals of the same weight of have different physiology requiring differing "energies" for a quick kill. The potential energy of the bullet is only part of the story. Lethality comes from the transfering of that energy to the target. Expanding bullets transfer a greater percentage of their potential energy than do FMJ, thats why we all pay the big bucks.

Unfortunately for us, animals are not very scientific, they don't care if we shot them with a 22 lr or a 4000 lasermatic magnum express. The Energy requirements came from guides who have noticed which cartridges seem to stop that particular animal most effectively in a properly placed shot.

The folks at Holland and Holland (I cite them because they try to design rifles to hunt with) figured in their devolpment of the 375 that Sectional Density and velocity were the two most important considerations when designing the .375. It looks like they may have gotten that right. Then why does everyone insist on the foot lb argument? The truth is, the argument works as long as the sectional density is above .300 and the velocity is over 2500 fps (at muzzle).

The whole energy thing is out there so you can see equivalent cartridges that will work well for the type of animal you are hunting (i.e. 9.3x62 vs 375 H&H).

Enough of my babling. Go out and fire off that 4000 lasermatic magnum express and try not to get hurt.

John

Minimum energy require is that that causes the bullet too get to the vital organs and destroy them enough to cause death.

Where the bullet is placed has more to do with what size or power.

Many big animals have been killed with well a place shot from some very small guns.(IE a 22 short into a head of a large hog or steer).

Most of the time I prefer more power then the minimum.

The more I need meat the less I worry about power and more concerned with just killing something. Give me about any fire arm and I'll be eating something shortly.

A 500 gr at 2300fps to head of a rabbit is a bit much but I would be eating. A 22lr to the brain of a moose would less then one would want But I would be eating.

Given the choice I would take a bit more then minimum. I would rather have my 300 sav then a 22lf for moose but then if I would be going on a moose hunt tomorrow I most likely take my 338wm. But then just for the fun of it I might take a over 40 cal DGR and wack the moose.

I would feel a bit under gunned with the 300 sav (not much). A but over gunned with the over 40 DGR. Mostly because of rifle weight not power. The only time one can over kill food game is when one destroys the meat. (IE woodcock hit at a few feet off the muzzle of a shotgun Nothing but mush)

I never really worry to much about power. I worry more about picking what rifle I want to hunt with today.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
A 500 gr at 2300fps to head of a rabbit is a bit much but I would be eating.

A 460wby to the head of a rabbit is killing two birds with one stone, you take the wabbit, and you decapitate the wabbit all in one shot. The worse I can say I shot a rabbit with is a 375. Then again, I don't own a 460 wby, I'll have to fix that... Oh Honey!!!! I know what I want for Xmas!

John