Maximum lethal range-175 elite hunter

[chetraguse]

Just curious on what you guys think of for determining maximum lethal range. I'm using the 175 berger elite hunter bullet. What is the best factor to look at for down range performance? Is it the impact velocity or energy and how much of either is sufficient for elk?

 

[Dmagna]

Impact velocity dictates energy, so you have to figure out speed at the range of impact and that will give you energy. Depending on what you are shooting you will need to let your ethics be your guide on how much energy you want at impact.

 

[jraulsten]

You want to look for energy at a given distance. All the velocity in the world doesn't mean anything unless you have the mass to go along with it to give you the energy needed to be lethal. If you want to figure it out it is mass (175) x velocity squared, divided by 450,800 to give you foot-pounds of energy.

 

[Varmint Hunter]

Generally speaking - a bullet is considered to have a "maximum lethal range" at the farthest distance that the bullet will still expand on the animal being hunted. So, muzzle velocity plays a big role in that equation and so does the structure of what is being hit. Naturally, this assumes a good hit in the vitals.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[chetraguse]

Ok. So are you happy with 1250lbs at impact?

 

[jraulsten]

Ok. So are you happy with 1250lbs at impact?

I would be for Whitetail but not sure about elk. I don't have the experience with elk to say if that is sufficient or not but I think some states have recommended minimum requirements. I want to say I read somewhere that Colorado says the minimum should be 1500 lbs for elk but don't quote me on that..........

 

[ResearchinStuff]

If you have enough velocity for the bullet to upset and frag, it will produce a good wound channel, and the animal will die. Check with berger, but most of their bullets work down to 1800 fps.

Energy is irrelevant to tissue damage. Anyone who's ever shot a fmj into something knows that first hand. The bullet has to upset to disrupt tissue, and the upset threshold is dependant on impact velocity and bullet construction.

 

[jraulsten]

Energy is irrelevant?

 

[xsn10s]

There's a video of Wayne Van Zwoll taking an elk at 600 yards with a 6.5 Creedmoor and I think a 129 SST. The energy must have been around 1100 ft/ lbs range. I'm not going to criticize him because he's more knowledgable than me. But I'd rather have far more energy and a bigger caliber and bullet. I'm in the 1500 ft/lbs camp. I might go 1400 ft/lbs with a proven bullet and load. YMMV

 

[FEENIX]

Energy is irrelevant?

They are often misunderstood or disregarded. Transfer of energy exists (Law of Physics) regardless. The magnitude of energy or severity is another story.

 

[xsn10s]

Gonna need energy to cause bullet fragmentation or mushrooming. Which transfers energy to tissue and causes trauma.

 

[Ckleeves]

You want to look for energy at a given distance. All the velocity in the world doesn't mean anything unless you have the mass to go along with it to give you the energy needed to be lethal. If you want to figure it out it is mass (175) x velocity squared, divided by 450,800 to give you foot-pounds of energy.

I would argue the exact opposite. Energy really means nothing. If the particular bullet has enough velocity to expand/upset that's what dictates performance. A 300 gr bullet going 1400 fps will leave a lot smaller wound channel then a 100 gr bullet going 2200 even though the 300 has more energy.

 

[Ckleeves]

Gonna need energy to cause bullet fragmentation or mushrooming. Which transfers energy to tissue and causes trauma.

Wouldn't you need velocity? You can have a ton (literally) of energy and have zero fragmentation or mushrooming.

 

[jraulsten]

They are often misunderstood or disregarded. Transfer of energy exists (Law of Physics) regardless. The magnitude of energy or severity is another story.

I was an engineer in another life.......Just wanted to see what answer I would get.