How Much energy is too little?

What seems like a hundred years ago, I got a contract to do some control hunting on a military installation ....lets say in another country. Critters were fairly large, 4 to 600 lbs. Did most of it with a pre64 model 70 in '06. 150 grain factory ammo and never had to shoot one of them twice. One day I was out stompin' around with an M-16 rifle on my shoulder just doing some scouting. I had a local with me as kind of a helper and to make sure I didn't shoot anything important. We jumped a "group, herd, flock, sounder" of the target critters out of a ravine. The last one of the bunch had a busted back leg. All I had in the little "poodle shooter" was 55 grain military ball and said critter were approx 175 yards on the next hill. The local rep from the base , in broken "engrish" started yelling at me to shoot that last broken legged critter. I sat down , rested over my knees and pulled the switch, holding (with iron sights) on the point of the shoulder. It went down like a bag o' sand. That worked so well I started moving up the line and proceeded to drop 4 more, all with a single shot to the shoulder. Nary a twitch out of the 5 and I must say I was very surprised at the terminal performance of that 55 grain FMJ. Shot placement had a lot to do with it and I'm sure secondary bone frags did a lot of damage. All were shot right on the point of the shoulder.

southpa said:

Im curious how a necropsy will prove your point about that vital destruction that clearly wasn't delivered quite handily?

Click to expand...

It establishes that what we saw in a 2 dimensional video was what we thought it was.

Watch enough with both, and you'll see our eyes can deceive us regarding angles.

Whenever I see the word "should" by somebody posting on the internet is like you think you have all the answers. I think you should keep your should off the internet

bigred1 said:

While terminal energy isn't the only concern we should have in mind, it is definitely a very important one. A friend of mine tried to finish off a cow elk with a point blank shot from a 357 mag to her neck and the bullet didn't get past the thick neck hair. I shoot a large caliber with heavy bullets so when my lung shot goes wrong the bullet can get through thick hair, skin and break heavy bones if needed. The old buffalo hunters knew that hair and bone were the enemies of good penetration and therefore used heavy bullets to ensure penetration.

Click to expand...

So a 357 magnum would not penetrate elk hair?

RichCoyle said:

Whenever I see the word "should" by somebody posting on the internet is like you think you have all the answers. I think you should keep your should off the internet

Click to expand...

Should?

southpa said:

Didn't think you'd like to answer the question. Your words "preconceived theories" are proof enough you just want to be correct. Thanks for trying!

Click to expand...

You "should" quit trying to be in charge.

RichCoyle said:

You "should" quit trying to be in charge.

Click to expand...

In charge? Right back at ya. Also, I apologize for mistaking your comment. It's not a big deal to show how my experience goes along with the video I posted. Don't know how you get me trying to be in charge out of that. Noy what's happening

HARPERC said:

It establishes that what we saw in a 2 dimensional video was what we thought it was.

Watch enough with both, and you'll see our eyes can deceive us regarding angles.

Click to expand...

I've seen it play out in real time. Many times. With both eyes open haha. With butchering and necropsy to boot. It's just as sad as the video. Sent ya a PM by the way.

When we hunters are told "should", it sure seems like the poster is telling us how it "should" be done.

rbTanzan said:

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.

Click to expand...

These solids are a Woodleigh, they have a flat meplat with rounded edges below, they have since changed this design to have a larger flat meplat.
All buff shot with them spun to the direction of the shot, the soft nose put their front ends on the ground 90% of the time. I have used 375's, both H&H Weatherby/RUM, 416's, 404's, 458 WM Lott Rigby, 470, 500 & 505 Gibbs, the solids always perform differently to a soft…

Cheers.

yobuck said:

But we only hear about the ones that were tipped over.

Click to expand...

You have to remember the 45/70 almost brought the bison to extinction in North America.

It's age old fuddlore that someone somewhere came up with based off of feelings and not scientific data and people still parrot who don't understand how bullets work and kill.

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...

Physics...I love a good Newtonian physics thread! Later we'll get into string theory and quantum mechanics!

With That video, all I know about that is this. If I hit that poor goat with my 6.5x300 weatherby shooting a 127 lrx or 125 HHT at 3500 fps it would of been A DRASTICALLY different video. Not that mess of a video.