Husky user
Well-Known Member
Those many kills of Buffalo were at point blank range(well under 100 yards)Many many Buffalo were tipped over with the 45-70 and other Buffalo Cartridges starting around 1200 fps
Those many kills of Buffalo were at point blank range(well under 100 yards)Many many Buffalo were tipped over with the 45-70 and other Buffalo Cartridges starting around 1200 fps
Those many kills of Buffalo were at point blank range(well under 100 yards)
Yes! Killing is exactly that. They were not hunted (except for the Indians). There are people like Buffalo Bill hired by the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company during the the Transcontinental Railroad expansion in the 1800s to kill as many buffaloes to feed the railroad workers, hides to help finance the construction, etc., and to hurt the Indians for their opposition. The decimation of these buffalo kills was pivotal in the tragic devastation of the Indians and society. So, the buffalo kills analogy is not a good stats to use IMHO, much like the poachers killing elephants, rhinos, etc., with AK-47s, but that's just me. Moving on …Those many kills of Buffalo were at point blank range(well under 100 yards)
It's so hard not to say anything, but I will just enjoy my coffee
I am a Licensed Professional Engineer. Imagine how hard it is to resist. Coffee tastes good.I couldn't stop myself. I felt like I did a poor job of stating my position against the use of ft/lbs. as a measure of killing performance. In some of my posts, it appeared that I may have been against the Laws of Physics…..instead of the misuse of terminology! memtb
I am a Licensed Professional Engineer. Imagine how hard it is to resist. Coffee tastes good.
Bullet trains. Get you there faster and have the smoothest ride!Which trains do ya prefer? memtb
I read the terminal ballistics paper, great share btw, and I agree with the writer on the fact that the shooting world, while generally aware of the physics, really don't have the depth of knowledge to make any accurate assumptions/conclusions based on a single factor being the 'Golden Chalice' of how much is enough. Several have touched on this by bringing bullet selection, and different levels of energy based on the size of the animal into the discussion. I don't feel like you can have too much, but certainly there is an argument for too little. Frankly, there are far too many factors to consider to come up with an answer that is universal for any given situation.If I understand what you're implying, I wholeheartedly agree…..energy is far overrated! It's been pushed/instilled into our thoughts long before this 71 year old started reading everything he could find pertaining to firearms…..and I was hand loading @15 yo.
I've posted this before, but I suspect that those that worship at the ft/lbs energy throne will never read it! memtb
Wait a second, what about Buffalo Hunter, ole Billy Dixon, trapped at Adobe Walls? Didn't he unhorse an Indian Brave at 1,525 yards on a documented hit with a Sharps 50-140? A horse is kind of an Elk like critter, needs how many foot pounds energy at 1,500 yards?I couldn't stop myself. I felt like I did a poor job of stating my position against the use of ft/lbs. as a measure of killing performance. In some of my posts, it appeared that I may have been against the Laws of Physics…..instead of the misuse of terminology! memtb