How Much energy is too little?

I'd like to see a discussion on what is considered 'Enough' energy to effectively kill an Elk, Deer, Antelope...critter in general.

I've seen folks suggest that anything over 1100ft/lbs all the way to a minimum of 1500. While looking at some Pistol data, I found that a .45ACP 230gn bullet has 369 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. I'm willing to bet I could kill an Elk with a .45ACP at point blank, not that it'd be my preferred weapon/cartridge of choice.

So, assuming a .45 with 369 ft/lbs is adequate to kill an Elk, at point blank, why do so many people think they must have AT LEAST 1100 or 1500 ft/lbs of energy or any other arbitrary amount of energy? What is this based on? Is there any empirical data to support a specific minimum? Where do these figures originate?

LET THE OPINIONS FLY!

JK

WyoTex said:

I'd like to see a discussion on what is considered 'Enough' energy to effectively kill an Elk, Deer, Antelope...critter in general.

I've seen folks suggest that anything over 1100ft/lbs all the way to a minimum of 1500. While looking at some Pistol data, I found that a .45ACP 230gn bullet has 369 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. I'm willing to bet I could kill an Elk with a .45ACP at point blank, not that it'd be my preferred weapon/cartridge of choice.

So, assuming a .45 with 369 ft/lbs is adequate to kill an Elk, at point blank, why do so many people think they must have AT LEAST 1100 or 1500 ft/lbs of energy or any other arbitrary amount of energy? What is this based on? Is there any empirical data to support a specific minimum? Where do these figures originate?

LET THE OPINIONS FLY!

JK

Click to expand...

KE is a controversial issue; many here, including bullet makers, are not too keen on it. See similar threads below. Like it or not, the law of physics is there to be appreciated, not ignored.



"My" unwritten rule is 1000 FT-LBS for antelope/deer-size game and 1500 FT-LBS for elk-size game and higher than the minimum recommended bullet velocity (a critical choice) to expand at POI effectively. It has not failed me for many decades. The NUT (who is responsible for bullet choice, shot placement, etc.) behind the trigger remains the most significant factor.

WyoTex said:

I'd like to see a discussion on what is considered 'Enough' energy to effectively kill an Elk, Deer, Antelope...critter in general.

I've seen folks suggest that anything over 1100ft/lbs all the way to a minimum of 1500. While looking at some Pistol data, I found that a .45ACP 230gn bullet has 369 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. I'm willing to bet I could kill an Elk with a .45ACP at point blank, not that it'd be my preferred weapon/cartridge of choice.

So, assuming a .45 with 369 ft/lbs is adequate to kill an Elk, at point blank, why do so many people think they must have AT LEAST 1100 or 1500 ft/lbs of energy or any other arbitrary amount of energy? What is this based on? Is there any empirical data to support a specific minimum? Where do these figures originate?

LET THE OPINIONS FLY!

JK

Click to expand...

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

Many many Buffalo were tipped over with the 45-70 and other Buffalo Cartridges starting around 1200 fps

I think energy is way overrated. Velocity at impact is what matters for proper bullet expansion. Bullets expanding with velocity penetrate into the vital cavity causing disruption of vitals and ultimately death.

WyoTex said:

So, assuming a .45 with 369 ft/lbs is adequate to kill an Elk, at point blank, why do so many people think they must have AT LEAST 1100 or 1500 ft/lbs of energy or any other arbitrary amount of energy? What is this based on? Is there any empirical data to support a specific minimum? Where do these figures originate?

Click to expand...

Ive heard the common minimum energy requirements were determined in the 1940s by Townsend Whelen, an accomplished big game hunter and prolific writer of guns and hunting of that day. The US Fish and Game was in its infancy and probably referred to literature from respected sources like Whelen, my guess is however the energy values were arrived at, bullet technology of that day played a large role in why they are so high. People still use them today because, my guess is that no one has done further testing because current values are overkill... (IMO) that is, it works.

Most will poo poo this, BUT, in all of my hunting, including some big Water buff and other large critters like Kodiak bear, I truly believe energy has little to do with killing power… What kills is tissue destruction of either the CNS or vital parts supplying those organs for life.
I have used solids on buff, with very little reaction, then used a soft and the result is vastly different. This cannot be explained away with energy differences, because both bullets came from the same rifle. About 5,000lbs/ft in both cases from my 416 Rigby, one 410g RNSP & one 400g RN Solid.
When I choose a cartridge, most of the time it HAS TO meet my minimum velocity criteria, which is the optimum bullet weight plus one weight above, or the weight I have chosen, to be moving at or above 3,000fps at the muzzle. This does not occur in every single instance, but this is what I aim for.

This is all I have to say in this thread.

Cheers.

FEENIX said:

KE is a controversial issue; many here, including bullet makers, are not too keen on it. See similar threads below. Like it or not, the law of physics is there to be appreciated, not ignored.



"My" unwritten rule is 1000 FT-LBS for antelope/deer-size game and 1500 FT-LBS for elk-size game and higher than the minimum recommended bullet velocity (a critical choice) to expand at POI effectively. It has not failed me for many decades. The NUT (who is responsible for bullet choice, shot placement, etc.) behind the trigger remains the most significant factor.

Click to expand...

^ This is spot on for my criteria as well.

Luckily, we have not lost a game animal yet adhering to these numbers.

MagnumManiac said:

. . .
I have used solids on buff, with very little reaction, then used a soft and the result is vastly different. This cannot be explained away with energy differences, because both bullets came from the same rifle. About 5,000lbs/ft in both cases from my 416 Rigby, one 410g RNSP & one 400g RN Solid.
When I choose a cartridge, most of the time it HAS TO meet my minimum velocity criteria, which is the optimum bullet weight plus one weight above, or the weight I have chosen, to be moving at or above 3,000fps at the muzzle. This does not occur in every single instance, but this is what I aim for.

This is all I have to say in this thread.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

I like your 3000fps muzzle goal for hunting loads. I do the same, if not a little more when given a choice. There are some who advocate 2600fps impact speed for an increased number of 'dead right there' reactions. I like to check that out and am happy that many modern "elk" loads and cartridges can take that over 200 yards and then some.

But with big bores like a 416 Rigby I settle for 2800fps and 325-350gn all-copper.

Optimum bullet weights change depending on bullet construction, with all-copper allowing about a 10% reduction in weight for equivalent penetration and killing power.

As for the note on the solid, it is also a function of shape: flat-nose solids over 60% flat-frontal displace material better, kill better, penetrate straighter. Someone mentioned the terminal ballistics study and that is surely a must read for everyone interested in bullet choice for hunting.

WyoTex said:

I'd like to see a discussion on what is considered 'Enough' energy to effectively kill an Elk, Deer, Antelope...critter in general.

I've seen folks suggest that anything over 1100ft/lbs all the way to a minimum of 1500. While looking at some Pistol data, I found that a .45ACP 230gn bullet has 369 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. I'm willing to bet I could kill an Elk with a .45ACP at point blank, not that it'd be my preferred weapon/cartridge of choice.

So, assuming a .45 with 369 ft/lbs is adequate to kill an Elk, at point blank, why do so many people think they must have AT LEAST 1100 or 1500 ft/lbs of energy or any other arbitrary amount of energy? What is this based on? Is there any empirical data to support a specific minimum? Where do these figures originate?

LET THE OPINIONS FLY!

JK

Click to expand...

A 22lr to the brain at point blank has killed a many livestock such as pigs & cows, etc. How much energy are we dealing with in this scenario ? I have seen deer taken with a 22LR HP with not so great of shot placement also. There were quite a few reasons for poachers using this caliber.

chav0_12 said:

I think energy is way overrated. Velocity at impact is what matters for proper bullet expansion. Bullets expanding with velocity penetrate into the vital cavity causing disruption of vitals and ultimately death.

Click to expand...

MagnumManiac said:

Most will poo poo this, BUT, in all of my hunting, including some big Water buff and other large critters like Kodiak bear, I truly believe energy has little to do with killing power… What kills is tissue destruction of either the CNS or vital parts supplying those organs for life.
I have used solids on buff, with very little reaction, then used a soft and the result is vastly different. This cannot be explained away with energy differences, because both bullets came from the same rifle. About 5,000lbs/ft in both cases from my 416 Rigby, one 410g RNSP & one 400g RN Solid.
When I choose a cartridge, most of the time it HAS TO meet my minimum velocity criteria, which is the optimum bullet weight plus one weight above, or the weight I have chosen, to be moving at or above 3,000fps at the muzzle. This does not occur in every single instance, but this is what I aim for.

This is all I have to say in this thread.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

LOL, the disruption of vitals/tissue destruction on CNS/vitals is energy transfer (energy dump or whatever terminology to get the point across), as captured and measured by the video from Norma's ballistic gel. As per the laws of physics, energy is not created or destroyed but merely changes forms and is transferred from potential to kinetic to thermal energy. Like it or not, believe it or not, appreciate it or not, it is working hard for all of us, period!



Tony, you addressed two things that I also emphasized in my original response to the OP: the importance of bullet choice and velocity (especially at POI). Cheers!

Energy don't kill bullets do.
If we relied on energy then I guess archery equipment is gonna have to up its game.
Bullets kill!!!! Broadheads kill!!!
Not energy.

Tom264 said:

Energy don't kill bullets do.
If we relied on energy then I guess archery equipment is gonna have to up its game.
Bullets kill!!!! Broadheads kill!!!
Not energy.

Click to expand...

There nothing without some form of energy.
All forms of energy are associated with motion. For example, any given body has kinetic energy if it is in motion. A tensioned device such as a bow or spring, though at rest, has the potential for creating motion; it contains potential energy because of its configuration.