Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Hunting > Long Range Hunting & Shooting

Long Range Hunting & Shooting Nightforce Optics


Reply

Minimum Velocity Clarification

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #29  
Old 09-13-2013, 05:06 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: South of Canada and North of Wyoming
Posts: 5,953
Re: Minimum Velocity Clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Bushman View Post
Its not always about how much energy a bullet has but how much can be transferred to the intended target.

This was the sole purpose for the creation of the slow flying 230gn 45 ACP.

Flat nosed lead bullets are wonderful for hunting because there ability to deform, and there flat nose aids in the transfer of energy as well as initiating a very stable, straight traveling expansion, that in my mind creates an ideal wound cavity as well as tissue damage . Another interesting trait of these bullets is that the recovered projectile is usually half the weight of what was fired. If it is not it either hit bone and exploded or exited the animal wasting energy. For purely hunting, a lead wadcutter will probably be close to an ideal design. However they fly like a brick. I prefer my bullets pointed.
It's very true that how much and how the energy is transferred is very important which is another reason why an arbitrary number of 1500 ftlbs is not a good measurement. I used some extreme examples to make a point. But even the low drag bullets we like have different characteristics.

A very practical example.... a 210 LRAB that impacts and expands at 1500 fps will have about 1050 ftlbs of KE. That bullet will do a good job putting down a big bull when shot through the lungs. Generally speaking, 1500 ftlbs is a fairly safe number for elk, but it is in no way a hard and fast rule.
__________________
- Mark

You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you make good use of it.
~ John Quincy Adams
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-13-2013, 05:50 PM
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 951
Re: Minimum Velocity Clarification

Quote:
It's very true that how much and how the energy is transferred is very important which is another reason why an arbitrary number of 1500 ftlbs is not a good measurement. I used some extreme examples to make a point. But even the low drag bullets we like have different characteristics.

A very practical example.... a 210 LRAB that impacts and expands at 1500 fps will have about 1050 ftlbs of KE. That bullet will do a good job putting down a big bull when shot through the lungs. Generally speaking, 1500 ftlbs is a fairly safe number for elk, but it is in no way a hard and fast rule.
I could not agree more
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-13-2013, 08:33 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 23
Re: Minimum Velocity Clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Bushman View Post
A bullet fragmenting and stopping inside an animal is indeed dumping energy. It is creating a large wound cavity, or a lot of small ones and a massive amount of surrounding tissue damage, trauma, resulting from extreme shock. This is precisely what berger advertises their bullets design is intended to do. Every animal i have shot where the berger performed as said was filled with mush. Not tissue with lots of holes in it, but mush. This is also reffered to as hydrostatic shock. Another highly debated topic that in my mind is a result of a intentionally deformed bullet dumping energy. Usually revealing itself as the damaged, blood shot, tissue surrounding the bullets entrance/exit. Hunting deer with lead buck shot is another fine example of this and a very efficient way to kill quickly.
You have me there. I cannot explain whether the "mush" is the result of particles radiating out of the fragmenting bullet (what I choose the believe) or if it is the transference of energy to these water-filled, soft tissue organs in hydro-static shock. I've cut away my share of blood-shot meat from high-velocity cartridges that is for sure.

Thank you for the discussion. It would seem we all have similar views in the end, just different ways of looking what the source behind it might be.

Happy shooting!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-13-2013, 08:44 PM
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 951
Re: Minimum Velocity Clarification

Its both. In discussing the individual components, do not forget that they all work together.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-15-2013, 02:16 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The rifle range, or archery range or behind the computer in Alaska
Posts: 3,516
Re: Minimum Velocity Clarification

I haven't read all the posts so be kind to me if I express something previously covered.

1: I have no idea if berger bullets expand below 1800'sec. Ive killed one animal with them and expansion was not a problem. That said, the impact velocity was WAY above the 1800'sec mark.

2: I believe that there are many factors that come into play as to whether or not a bullet will expand at below manufacturer stated velocities. That's assuming that their number is based on firing into a media such as jugs of water. Some game has thicker hides than others, denser muscles, heavier bone etc...Obviously if you hit an elk versus an antelope all other factors being equal, they likely will offer different results at say 1500'sec or 1600'sec and so on. Elk hide is definitely tougher than antelope hide and surely will affect expansion one way or the other. Obviously if rib bones are encountered on either, it would have an effect versus slipping the bullet between ribs.

3: I believe that expansion is more beneficial than 'energy'. Energy to me is NOTHING more than a mathematical equation. A 2000# car moving at 6' per second may offer similar energy as a 140 grain bullet moving at 1800' per second. The vehicle will likely barely even phase a deer if struck at 6' per second but the 140 grain (expanding or fragmenting) bullet may make it act as if it were hit by lightning. This is not an apples to apples comparison and that is the point. Energy is just a mathematical equation. I use (for ballistic purposes):

W*V^2/450380 or
bullet weight in grains * velocity^2/450380.

It has been brought up that non expanding bullets will 'pencil' through an animal and offers anything but rapid terminal effects. This has been my experience. Even when hit square in the lungs 1, 2 and even 3 times I have seen game survive for quite some time. Small holes that are poked into tissue rather than holes ripped and torn through tissue tend to 'seal' up which minimizes blood loss and air loss. I have seen bullets that did expand kill game VERY quickly. Often within seconds and often right on impact. This is likely due to a good wound channel and energy transfer. Mathematical energy and energy transfer are not the same thing.

4: IMHO, energy transfer is somewhat important but not as important as a good wound channel. Arrows offer well under 100'# of energy yet can kill quite quickly when sharp broad heads are used. This is obviously due to hemorrhaging and other tissue damage. When lungs are involved there is also an oxygen depletion to the blood supply which is being expelled from the body anyway or being re routed into the lungs/chest cavity deriving oxygen to other vital organs and the brain.

5: IMHO, shock (due to energy transfer from expanding bullets) can have an effect on small to medium game such as deer. This is caliber/bullet dependent. I have seen lung shot deer fold in their tracks when hit in the lungs but never moose. Moose absorb a lot of energy. Even with 338 caliber expanding bullets. 300 grain Bergers, 250 grain partitions, 300 grain accubonds, you name it. They don't even act like their hit most of the time but after a few seconds of airing out, they expire and fall down. Pencil through them and you may never find them. Moose often die in about the same time shot with an arrow assuming a good broad head was used with adequate penetration and of course good shot placement into the lungs or heart area. IMO, this proves that creating a good wound channel is of more value than raw 'energy'. Energy is more of a side effect of other important factors working together. At least as far as terminal ballistics are concerned. Sectional density, momentum and expansion IMO are much more valuable than energy which is more of a side affect.

Only my opinions/experiences here. Nothing more.

M
__________________
Long range shooting is a process that ends with a result. Once you start to focus on the result (where the shot goes, how big the group is, what your buck will score, what your match score is, what place you are in...) then you loose the capacity to focus on the process.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC