What is the minimum amount of ft. lbs needed

[Randyd]

Dang, hopefully you get to see another bull like that within your new range capability!

My situation was a metaphor for life; there is always something you want that is a little outside your reach, ability, finances or whatever. The key is to keep trying and not give up, so that is what I am doing, exploring to find my limits.

Thanks for the advice on bullets, I'll look into them

 

[remingtonman_25_06]

I am in the category of not needing 1500 ft lbs for elk, more in the safe neighborhood of 1000ft lbs, and around 500-600 for deer, instead of the famed 1000 ft lbs, thats just crazy...

I've killed 10 elk in 11 years, and been around many more killed. They are not bulletproof, but yes they can be hard to kill when you dont put the bullet in the right spot. The key is to use a bullet that causes extensive damage, yes still fully penetrates. I like the shoulder shots for elk, 90% of the time they are DRT. They cant go far with 2 broken shoulders. Deer on the other hand are pretty easy to kill and can be killed with most anything and be DRT. I've seen them be DRT with 55g nbt's out to 400 yards with 400ft lbs of remaining energy, put a 55g bullet in a deers chest and hes not going to far.

Since were talking minimums here this is just my opinion, but I base it on energy and remaining velocity at the max distance of which either the energy or velocity falls below what is needed for a clean kill IMO.

In my opinion, 1000ft lbs for elk and a minimum impact velocity of 1700 fps for an SST,AB, nbt, vld, would be where I drew the line.

In a 7 mag you can get 1000 ft lbs at 1000 yards with 168g vld's and 180g vld's and pretty close to it with a couple other bullets. I know as well as everyone else they kill elk out to 1K so obviously 1000 ft lbs is good enough.

1500 for elk and 1000 for deer is a little over rated IMO and experience.

 

[3006savage]

I believe the KE minimum is dependant on conditions whe the shot is taken. When taking elk at long range I think a higher KE minimum is required as shot placement is harder to control. If the shots impact is not broadside and in the vitals then you risk loosing a wounded animal when going with lower KE numbers. Simply put I feel is more reasonable to use a 300 Savage on an Elk at its range with only 1200 lbs KE left than it is to use a 300 RUM at the range it only has 1200 lbs left. This assume the rifles are equally accurate and the same bullets are used.

 

[436]

In the last 45 plus years of hunting; I've seen more then a few cow's and a couple of bulls tipped over with a 240gr .44 Mag out of a Win 94; distance's were between 50 yards and just under 200 yards.... yeah, that might have been a little long for that cow with a peep sight; but they all went down. Thinking back; I'd say the "fpe" ran from 1350 fpe to 900 fpe. Don't get me wrong I'm not calling the .44 Mag "Elk Medicine" by any stretch of the imagination; I'm just relating the fact it's were the energy lands in most applications that really counts. Now trying to break down bone and muscle is another story, that takes raw power and a very strong bullet; but putting it into the lugs or heart off the soft pots on the hide/side, is another.

I would agree; if your going to push that bullet out on those long range shot's, you'd better plan on break heavy bone and going through lot's of muscle; those shot's aren't apt to land right where you want them most the time'…, doesn't matter how good you are with your rifle, no one I ever met was that good!

So "how much energy" well…. it sounds to me like; its all depends on where you're standing at the time.
436

 

[4bycamper]

"I've killed 10 elk in 11 years, and been around many more killed. They are not bulletproof, but yes they can be hard to kill when you dont put the bullet in the right spot. The key is to use a bullet that causes extensive damage, yes still fully penetrates. I like the shoulder shots for elk, 90% of the time they are DRT. They cant go far with 2 broken shoulders. Deer on the other hand are pretty easy to kill and can be killed with most anything and be DRT. "

+1 on all that.

I've killed 20 something deer and elk so far. All of them went down within walking distance. Only the deer did a bang-flop for me. Cow elk went down 15 to 25 yards after a heart / lung shot. Bulls lasted more than 45 yards.

Even with my 300 Win Mag ( 180 gr. SGK at 3000 fps ) I was unable to break both shoulders. I tried twice. One at 60 yards and one at 225 yards. Both elk dropped but not DRT.

I generally hunt elk to eat elk. I don't mind taking a cow to put in the freezer.
So I won't do a spine shot, it messes up the back strap. I am convinced that a well built bullet, 160 grain or better, still going 1000 fps will take an elk when put in that BIG heart / lung target.

Having said that, I'm sure that it's been done with less. It just seems like you're taking your chances.

So far each elk has had a different level of endurance. All have been tougher than deer. Some just amazing in their resistance to death.

So shoot the biggest caliber you have, and the heaviest bullet you can shoot well. And best of luck to you.


End of rant. Apologies in advance to any who are offended.
JM .02

 

[theodore]

Three things:
1st- I'm not offended

2nd- I love the 7mm 168 vld for elk, they are not consistent for pass through but the hydraulic shock is really high with wound channels as large as 18".

3rd-1000fps? I would love to know a bullet that works on game at 3000fps and still expands consistently at 1000fps. A-max has the lowest impact velocity that I know of which is around 1400fps(I could be wrong and it could be lower than I thought). Hitting an animal with a bullet that doesn't expand releases nearly zero amount of energy into the game and is like hitting them with a broadless arrow. Generally 2000fps is the rule of thumb for minimum impact velocity.

The minimum amount of ft. lbs needed on elk really does depends on the bullet. They are all different.

 

[4bycamper]

OK, I'll backtrack on the 1000 fps.

Perhaps I was a bit hasty there. After I checked my ballistics program, even the 160 gr SGK (BC 0.470 best) is still over 2030 fps at 600 yds. And 600 is pretty much my max long range shot so far... so oops.



JM .02

 

[elkaholic]

Three things:
1st- I'm not offended

2nd- I love the 7mm 168 vld for elk, they are not consistent for pass through but the hydraulic shock is really high with wound channels as large as 18".

3rd-1000fps? I would love to know a bullet that works on game at 3000fps and still expands consistently at 1000fps. A-max has the lowest impact velocity that I know of which is around 1400fps(I could be wrong and it could be lower than I thought). Hitting an animal with a bullet that doesn't expand releases nearly zero amount of energy into the game and is like hitting them with a broadless arrow. Generally 2000fps is the rule of thumb for minimum impact velocity.

The minimum amount of ft. lbs needed on elk really does depends on the bullet. They are all different.

I agree with Theo on this one. While ft. lbs. are a consideration, the bullet IMHO is a greater factor. You can have two bullets that theoretically should deliver the same amount of energy based on weight and velocity and perform "completely" different on an animal. What happens inside the animal is what kills and ft lbs has less to do with it than other factors. That being said, a bullet delivering a very low amount of energy will normally not allow a bullet to perform up to its potential. Also, the elapsed time that a bullet takes to expend its energy inside an animal greatly affects the type and amount of damage caused even if the total energy expended is equal. This why a Berger and an accubond of the same wt. and velocity form different wound channels and could perform better or worse depending on the circumstances even though they both deliver equal energy. I don't mean to sound like the amount of energy delivered is of no value, but I do think it is often over rated. OK, I now have my flak jacket on...Rich

 

[Kihhjmmmnb]

The Myth of Minimum Impact Energy | Winchester World of Whitetail


Here is a good article explaining those high numbers to be a myth

 

[jonthomps]

I've also heard that 3 times the animals estimated weight is a good rule of thumb. But don't tell the tens of thousands of moose that have been dropped with a 6.5 Swede.

 

[Wyodog]

It is my opinion that KE and or foot pounds of energy is really an antiquated and not an accurate method of determining killing power. The Taylor KO factor is 60-70 years old and has little relevance with modern day bullets. Bullets kill elk not energy. Energy play a role because energy is what delivers the bullet. That's all it does! Nothing more! Now that being said bullet design has alot to do with killing power as does the velocity of the bullet.

Two bullets of the same caliber traveling at the same speed. One passes through and the other remains in the animal. Both have the same foot pound of energy but the bullet that remains in the animal delivers more of that energy into the body than the pass through does. Does that mean the non-pass through kills better? Absolutely not. Still too many variables. Like tissue damage, wound Chanel, bullet expansion etc.

To truly predict maximum effective range of any load you have to consider bullet design and performance, velocity and energy.

All that being said I know for a fact that with good bullets 1000 Ft/lbs of energy is way more than you need. I know this because of personal experience and because the math doesn't work using energy as the only factor.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

It is my opinion that KE and or foot pounds of energy is really an antiquated and not an accurate method of determining killing power. The Taylor KO factor is 60-70 years old and has little relevance with modern day bullets. Bullets kill elk not energy. Energy play a role because energy is what delivers the bullet. That's all it does! Nothing more! Now that being said bullet design has alot to do with killing power as does the velocity of the bullet.

Two bullets of the same caliber traveling at the same speed. One passes through and the other remains in the animal. Both have the same foot pound of energy but the bullet that remains in the animal delivers more of that energy into the body than the pass through does. Does that mean the non-pass through kills better? Absolutely not. Still too many variables. Like tissue damage, wound Chanel, bullet expansion etc.

To truly predict maximum effective range of any load you have to consider bullet design and performance, velocity and energy.

All that being said I know for a fact that with good bullets 1000 Ft/lbs of energy is way more than you need. I know this because of personal experience and because the math doesn't work using energy as the only factor.

+++1

All about permanent wound channel.

Steve

 

[375rifleman]

I've been thinking about one of the various Subsonic 50 caliber rifle cartridges because although they are very very slow ~1100 FPS they retain their energy for a long way ~1000 FPE all the way out to ~2300 yards with a 750 grain A-Max probably longer with other bullets. I realize that at that slow penetration and bullet expansion will be greatly reduced so most bullets will behave more like full metal jacketed or solid bullets but it will still be a .510 hole and that's probably bigger than a fully expanded 6.5 swede ? Thanks in advance for any and all thoughts, opinions, and answers.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I've been thinking about one of the various Subsonic 50 caliber rifle cartridges because although they are very very slow ~1100 FPS they retain their energy for a long way ~1000 FPE all the way out to ~2300 yards with a 750 grain A-Max probably longer with other bullets. I realize that at that slow penetration and bullet expansion will be greatly reduced so most bullets will behave more like full metal jacketed or solid bullets but it will still be a .510 hole and that's probably bigger than a fully expanded 6.5 swede ? Thanks in advance for any and all thoughts, opinions, and answers.

A non-expanding pointed bullet vs a non-expanding flat front bullet will make a huge difference in permanent wound channel. The elasticity of the flesh will stretch and close back up and cause less damage than one might think.

Steve