Energy or bullet diameter most important?

[Petey308]

There has been a lot of interesting technical data shared throughout this discussion for sure. After all of that it seems to be that we are hoping to uncover a formula for how likely it is that a miss will still kill. The recipe for the bullet and chambering is to get your projectile into the vitals from the shot at hand. That may be close or far and it may be going through bone, muscle, or ideally just a little skin behind the shoulder. The bow hunting portion of me has never contemplated if there is a combination of broadhead and arrow weight that would kill with poor placement. It's all about what do you need to put it through the boilermaker. You can take a high shoulder shot and break down an animal while also doing enough damage to the lungs to kill it with the right gun and bullet. That involves many more variables than doing what you have to to put it on the heart. Sometimes that means not taking the shot until it gives you what you need. I lost the first bull elk I ever shot with a bow because he took a step just as I let the arrow go from 30 yds broadside. Clean pass through but it was high and back in the lungs. He clotted up and quit bleeding and was never seen or found again after looking for three days. Trust me, without going into it, I put all the effort I had into finding it. The point of mentioning that is it changed my perspective on critical shot placement no matter what you are shooting. The next bull I sent an arrow at had a three blade hole through the center of its heart and crashed in the trees 40 yds away when his body ran out of blood pressure. I'm not saying heart is the only way just that placement is numero uno.

Shot placement will always be key. The killing mechanisms of an arrow vs a high velocity modern rifle bullet are far different though. An arrow's ability to cut and tear to produce very fast blood loss is the priority on your selection. Factoring in weight and velocity really only helps with your range. Energy is barely a factor as well. So picking a broad head and arrow based on weight to help with its terminal performance and to make up for poor shot placement is not going to help you.

Modern rifle bullets kill best by how they convert energy into work, via hydraulic force and shock. Cutting and tearing is a secondary mechanism.

There are some principles that transfer from rifles/bullets and arrows, but not a whole lot in this particular subject.

You don't get the massive hydraulic force and shock with an arrow that you do with a modern rifle bullet. You don't get secondary wounding with an arrow like you do with good bullets that shed weight. The hydraulic force, shock, and secondary wounding with modern bullets creates really wide wounding and can be way more forgiving to shot placement than an arrow too. We're not talking about being off by like over a foot or anything, but I've seen many shots that impacted between lung and liver but both rear lobe and liver were damaged quite a bit and ended up killing the animal pretty quickly. With less forgiving bullets, or arrows, that shot usually ends up with an unrecovered animal.

 

[bigngreen]

Shot placement will always be key. The killing mechanisms of an arrow vs a high velocity modern rifle bullet are far different though. An arrow's ability to cut and tear to produce very fast blood loss is the priority on your selection. Factoring in weight and velocity really only helps with your range. Energy is barely a factor as well. So picking a broad head and arrow based on weight to help with its terminal performance and to make up for poor shot placement is not going to help you.

Modern rifle bullets kill best by how they convert energy into work, via hydraulic force and shock. Cutting and tearing is a secondary mechanism.

There are some principles that transfer from rifles/bullets and arrows, but not a whole lot in this particular subject.

You don't get the massive hydraulic force and shock with an arrow that you do with a modern rifle bullet. You don't get secondary wounding with an arrow like you do with good bullets that shed weight. The hydraulic force, shock, and secondary wounding with modern bullets creates really wide wounding and can be way more forgiving to shot placement than an arrow too. We're not talking about being off by like over a foot or anything, but I've seen many shots that impacted between lung and liver but both rear lobe and liver were damaged quite a bit and ended up killing the animal pretty quickly. With less forgiving bullets, or arrows, that shot usually ends up with an unrecovered animal.

I'm not convinced they are as different as many think especially with range. I've killed a few elk with arrows and cut quite a few, the wounding is so similar.
Arrow weight is huge when it comes to punching elk, you still have light and fast or heavy and slower methods.
Shot angles have the same issues, I've punch an arrow from stearn to stem on a bulls, I've also seen 4 inches of penetration on a shoulder. If guys used the same shot placement with their rifles as they did with an arrow we see a lot more harmonious out comes!
I don't see a huge difference in distance traveled after a similar hit either.

 

[memtb]

I'm not convinced they are as different as many think especially with range. I've killed a few elk with arrows and cut quite a few, the wounding is so similar.
Arrow weight is huge when it comes to punching elk, you still have light and fast or heavy and slower methods.
Shot angles have the same issues, I've punch an arrow from stearn to stem on a bullet I've also seen 4 inches of penetration on a shoulder. If guys used the same shot placement with their rifles as they did with an arrow we see a lot more harmonious out comes!

I'd still want a 90+/- compound or recurve with a heavy arrow and broad head…..and adjust my shooting range accordingly! Perhaps at my age….it would only be 80#! memtb

 

[C-130 Dude]

Let's say you are hunting for elk sized and smaller game and are targeting 750 yards or less. Would you say it would be more important for lethal, ethical kill to be the size of the bullet (just an example 30 caliber vs 25 caliber) or the ballistic energy the bullet gives out to that range (just an example 1200 vs 1800 lbs regardless of bullet size)?

I am trying to leave this somewhat open ended to avoid only comments from those who love a certain caliber, but I am considering a future rifle and am hopeful with plenty of practice I could possible do what I listed above. So many calibers out there, I just want to start with the right base and get proficient from there.

Thanks in advance.

If you really think that you will be making shots at that range, then I would say a 300WM would fit the bill nicely.

 

[bigngreen]

I'd still want a 90+/- compound or recurve with a heavy arrow and broad head…..and adjust my shooting range accordingly! Perhaps at my age….it would only be 80#! memtb

With bows from 40 years ago ya but today's bows especially when tuned expertly are fast, with a self bow or recurve ya that'll pull the range back and put the weight up.

 

[L2land]

You said it bigngreen. Modern bows are increasing range for the same reasons. Higher velocity from lower draw weight. small diameter for weight arrows that fly better and penetrate better than an old fat shaft with huge vanes. Like the right bullet, you get more options to achieve the penetration needed to get to the vitals.

 

[StanleyActual]

nevermind..

 

[FEENIX]

OMG!

 

[Lee Goodwin]

750 yards is a long way out there. 300 wm sounds as small of caliber and cartridge case as you want to go. If I could shoot my 338 well enough I'd go to that. I suspect a nosler accubond would get the job done. I might could pull off a 600 yard shot with my 300 wm, on deer...elk? Not sure.

 

[Goldengun]

Velocity + mass = energy. Neither the "size of the bullet" nor "ballistic energy" alone kills anything. As bullet size increases so does mass, relatively speaking. As mass increases so does potential energy transfer, all things being equal. These are not the only factors that result in energy transfer nor killing capability. More speed, like mass, does not necessarily kill better. But collectively they can and generally speaking do increase the likelihood of greater killing potential, when combined with the proper bullet and placement. Increasing speed, and decreasing mass proportionately, and vice a versa, I don't think will affect energy one way or the other. It will however affect a bullets tendency upon impact. The characteristics of your bullet choice and shot placement are probably far more important than energy or diameter, since the bullet is the only thing that ever touches the animal. Just use enough speed for your cartridge/bullet combination and put it in the right place.

 

[jessej]

OMG!

View attachment 442874

Seems like I feel like this everyday nowadays

 

[StanleyActual]

Velocity + mass = energy. Neither the "size of the bullet" nor "ballistic energy" alone kills anything. As bullet size increases so does mass, relatively speaking. As mass increases so does potential energy transfer, all things being equal. These are not the only factors that result in energy transfer nor killing capability. More speed, like mass, does not necessarily kill better. But collectively they can and generally speaking do increase the likelihood of greater killing potential, when combined with the proper bullet and placement. Increasing speed, and decreasing mass proportionately, and vice a versa, I don't think will affect energy one way or the other. It will however affect a bullets tendency upon impact. The characteristics of your bullet choice and shot placement are probably far more important than energy or diameter, since the bullet is the only thing that ever touches the animal. Just use enough speed for your cartridge/bullet combination and put it in the right place.

100%

 

[fordy]

Gday

This is an intriguing discussion. I hope it remains productive.

Unfortunately, this, like so many other discussions (favorite elk chambering/round, Dodge vs Ford vs Chevy, etc) brings participants emotions into the matter.

In fact, for this very reason many great contributors have distanced themselves from more frequently participating in discussions (or participating at all). Very unfortunate and highly irritating.

People (often times those not used to actual discussions) too often connect their opinions with their emotions. This utterly derails any useful discussion. Every time.

Many people simply do not have the capacity to consider the notion that other peoples ideas could be correct and that they potentially may be wrong. It is academic immaturity and illustrates a stunted intellect.

I like this , I'll also put myself forward as having acedemic immaturity & I apologise for that & have tried to improve my responses & conduct & hope this is a step in the right direction but let me know where I can improve & I'll try

I also have thoughts some actually don't worry about the advancement & still like shooting pills that work well most of the time & that's cool for them
Some also are looking for the edge due to what they have seen that can be improved & don't want to enter the situation that occurred for them to happen again or potentially is also a concern & push for the bar to be raised
These are my people yet plenty of friends in the first group but we don't talk on what I do / chase in depth

Think on this.
Here's two 30 cal projos with practically the same energy at the muzzle.

124 grain at a mv of 4200 fps.
215 grain at a mv of 3200 fps.

IF we shot an animal at a distance of 10 feet, and IF both projos performed exactly the same when they entered said animal, which on would kill better/faster?
Let's give this thought to different animals also.
Coyote
Deer/antelope
Elk
Moose/bear
T-Rex.

Yes I like this Jessej thankyou for showing who can clear their heads & who struggles.
Broadly speaking with what you asked the 124 will win this race yes even the T rex I'd say but no experience with them lol so I'll call I've got no blood y idea lol & I'm quite comfortably on a few critters & on certain resistances results will also give us mixed results but on a more consistent base the 124 rises to the top from my critters just not yours in that list as I've only hunted a few not many & those numbers can be counted on one hand

But let's give the other side a bit of reassuring
I've shot both pills a lot & only the 215 past a 1000 plus & no doubt the 215 will give better results @1000 plus but it also gives us a pill that can be improved on imo as it has weaknesses yet I still see oh but it's a dead critter yep fine for those who choose to do , so just keep shooting that pill & I've got no bones with that but I would like a pill that kills better yes I'm never happy & let's give the 124 a run also on the bad it won't make that 1k plus & give acceptable results but it will kill eventually so is that the end of the discussion hmmm im sure we would all pick holes in that as a persons choice

Now come back to that original question & im going to ramble on no doubt to some which might be cool for them & others please just put me on ignore that would be cool & appreciated
shoot what they want I couldn't care less but I will not engage with narrow minded people but happy to let them know if they wish

Now others may just step back & clear their heads & push for better products which is the ones I personally like to share ideas with & lucky to have found like minded individuals, then our knowledge is improved ten fold
Yep I call them mates now & a few on here , yet we don't see eye to eye on somethings but we are trying to learn more & some companies grab this information & tweak it further which is raising the bar as in the case of the 124 where we should leave the search for improvement on this pill
Once again imo NO WAY as it has weaknesses & can be improved on as I said I'm never happy
But so many will be happy with this pill & not search any further but if this post was to be read in 20 to 30 years I wonder how many will still be using these same pills
Once again imo not many as we will have better pills on the shelves ( well I hope as the gains are getting smaller but we can still get gains imo actually seeing it take place as this is written )
Yes we have moved forward from black powder / cast / c&c & so on
Now I don't believe ( my actuals on fur calculator show ) that monos were great to start ( poor real poor ) with when they first entered the world of bullet results but they have improved in leaps & bounds with a few brands superior to c&c across more resistances on average low velocity impacts the good frangible has a mono covered but I personally don't like velocity impacts that low but that's me

So to delve a little deeper & im not going to mention members name as I don't want to get accused of trying to recruit people
This person I've had a few conversations with on here openly on forum no pm & he ( I assume a he ) uses a Barnes in a medium bore for me big bore to others yet the velocity window this bloke uses that Barnes in is in a great place now there are better bullets & if he was to slip outside the velocity impact window of that pill or was about to go on a hunt for asiatic buff you watch me show him his choice has potential errors ( weaknesses) that will occur with Barnes on buff yet it kills fairly well but the fur calculator has shown common runs of 100 yard with a 270 &300 gr Barnes now down to 50 yards ( 20/30 yards common) with a 248&281 weight pill but in all reality the critters he's chasing & ranges man he's got very little chance of a issue occurring so I leave him be & happily discuss anything he may bring up but if he was a closed off mind but it kill's outside of that velocity window you watch my response or lack of it

Yes so many good people on here I wish I could personally pick their brains but I can't but equally some can just go along preaching BS & going around with their head in the sand but you watch this space monos are here to stay & will become the go to hunting pill for a many person regardless of government regulations ( be interesting to see a poll on which bullet type is most popular ea year started 20 years ago till 20 years time & I've got a idea of what way that graph is going

Yes a good mono will outperform a good frangible across the board on how the average person hunts when combined what is reality of occurrence in the field it's just good knowledge not marketing or scare munger that will show the way but it also maybe a different alloy than we have now that is king
Most pills behave pretty well if we keep in the velocity window and resistance step outside & watch things go pear shape Not all the time but it will happen so those who are happy shooting what they shoot keep shooting them for the ones that want that bit more insurance keep plugging away post results accept we are going to have failures on what we do but learn from them & report back to the companies & if it's credible data I'm sure that company will take note as they do with me
I personally know I'm lucky as I just go smack a critter to see
I come from where a pill can be improved !!! not what's right with it !!!! & if that offends people it's not my intention but it's been the best way to get a improvement in a design well imo & just how I smack critters these days yep I find the pills weakness no different than I'd say how improvement has occurred in the past by others
Yes I'm not anything special or a guru just someone who has a bit of experience under my belt of where to look

nevermind..

That's a shame as your post before edit was pretty good imo hope it wasn't after you read other posts

Agreed, and to add: The energy goes to work by converting to force. Not all bullets turn their energy into force, or at least not a lot of force. Some are much better than others and need less energy to begin with. How they convert energy to force is highly dependent upon their construction and the mechanics of how they behave terminally.

This is where the terms energy dump and energy transfer come in. As a bullet converts its energy into force, it rapidly loses momentum. If the bullet loses all its momentum from producing a huge amount of force, it typically doesn't exit. Typically, the higher the rate of momentum lost, the more force is produced and more wounding occurs. That said, you still want to balance it all out so that it occurs within the chest cavity and does the most damage to the vitals. You don't want the bullet to lose all its momentum on or near the surface, for example.

Also, the more momentum the bullet still has, the more force it's still producing. If it produces a ton of force, but simply doesn't lose it all at a rate higher than the speed its traveling, it'll still exit, which we see still with certain soft constructed lead core bullets in certain scenarios.

Ultimately, knowing how the particular bullet you're wanting to use coverts energy into force is what you should focus on and will be much more helpful than going with just a basic rule of thumb on minimum energy. There are many bullets out there that will produce excellent wounding with well under 1000ft-lbs of energy. That's because they're highly efficient at converting energy into force. Conversely, there are many bullets out there that are not efficient at converting energy into force or don't convert very much of it into force.

Frangible bullets are very efficient and effective at converting energy into force. Getting that proper balance though is crucial, and achieved by having sufficient starting mass and not placing the shot in an area where the amount of impact resistance is too much for the impact velocity. But adequate amount of mass at the start can really help with that, as does adjust shot placement for close range shots. A well-constructed and properly selected frangible mono can be very effective as well, to be fair.

This was good Aaron welcome back
Then I read this below as a contradiction of the above from my reading/ interpretation & take that as 2 steps backwards

This is false. It's been around forever. Perhaps it's new to this discussion and forum, but it's not anything new in regards to terminal ballistics. It's basic physics.


Yes, Newton's Third Law of Motion tells us about action/reaction. It's why gravity doesn't crush us all. But you can still overcome opposing force by exerting more than the object can hold up to. That's what a bullet is doing upon impact with an animal.


This is because mass is a crucial part of the equation. If there is insufficient mass to start, there will be an insufficient amount of mass retained after overcoming the opposing force. It's not hard to account for this though, if you understand it. And when you do understand it and apply it to your bullet selection, you actually produce a very broad window of velocity that they function well in and you don't NEED hyper velocities to achieve those desired results.



This is misleading and in an obvious effort to downplay the competition. Even tough constructed bonded bullets and other monos can suffer and not perform well in these conditions and this given scenario. To imply hunters don't actually need to understand bullet construction and terminal ballistics is unwise and irresponsible. To imply there's a product that makes it feasible and acceptable to be ignorant is also unwise, irresponsible, and it's not true.

With sufficient starting mass, and proper shot placement and balanced MV for the particular bullet and the particular hunt, as well as proper shot placement for the particular scenario, you'll be just fine and the force from the bullet increases wounding and results in more consistent quick and clean kills. Expecting hunters to have this ability and knowledge is not unrealistic.

As much as a particular manufacturer would love to have their product be the only one everyone uses, that's never going to happen. So we should be teaching bullet construction and terminal ballistics as a whole to the hunting community so that each hunter has the best potential for success with whatever bullet they chose to use.

I do agree with parts if you broadly want to talk but I actually thought hmm maybe we can get into the depths a little more this is with the utmost respect on the following
You still have a bit to clear your head before that can start & please everyone I've only just got Steve over the line on a few things that I've known for a longtime but he's showed me others I knew nothing about yes chewing the fat in a way that we can both be frank to ea other yet take no offence is hard but I'm sure we are @ a space now we both can see it's big picture ( & this is not just me he has others & im nothing special just vocal who pesters him flat out with result after result like now you see it & this is why yep critter after critter I'll take till I get my point across ) & why it's in private & not on here or other places ( I learnt from doing it in public with hammers & apex it's met with hostility as the white noise is frustrating to actually move forward & & this is not just promoting hammers I do that with everyone & OEP in Aussie to mark @ apex have taken on board what factual information i produce/provide , the thing I do is call a spade a spade
Please no offence intended

The last paragraph is correct but before we do we have to understand the basics & here's the next stage you might study up on & that's the planes & slip with different alloys then once we get past that we will move onto the bubbles then we can enter shape charges but ultimately it's the triangle that needs supporting yep we've done a bit of work that is no doubt in our words from bubble onwards but please study planes & slip they are not words used by many companies or bullet gurus ( if @ all ) but it's a good step forward to how we can look @ things ( clearing one's mind )
Yes I'm not shut off to you or anyone but I can't do that stickman thing Feenix put up as I've got serious time issues with a couple businesses to run & bullet testing to do let alone getting a bit of family/friends time that I value the most


Sorry I didn't break down in parts so accept my apology in advance & no proof read

Cheers

 

[FEENIX]

We've seen certain companies do well, and others not so much.

Agreed! There are more offerings now since the OP; competition makes the industry healthy and allows end-users more options/personal choices. However, "NO magic bullet" fits all situations, despite how each company markets its products. Badlands and Apex have emerged and gained support in the last two years. Kudos to George and Mark for their efforts; as any newcomer in any industry, it is never easy to make strides in an already competitive industry.