Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Minimum Velocity Clarification
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Talkyn" data-source="post: 851074" data-attributes="member: 68891"><p>Thanks for digging up some more figures. I was running out of time before I had to leave for work!</p><p></p><p>Bushman, what merit is the dispersion of this energy into the animal vs. the creation of a hole? If you use a bullet like a Berger that explodes inside the vitals, it is not the KE that stops the organs' functions, it is the nasty spray of shrapnel; the holes.</p><p></p><p>Montana's 210gr hard-cast sure as heck doesn't put any energy into the animal, yet it will be dispatched very quickly. Anyone that doubts this should really see it first hand. A co-worker uses his 45-70 Marlin almost exclusively with hard-cast bullets at very moderate speeds with tremendous success on moose.</p><p></p><p>We would all do well to recall that the first truly long range firearms where in calibers like the 45-70 and it's larger cousins. The trajectories are terrible, the KE figures are terrible, but the leathality is proven.</p><p></p><p><strong>Gosh we've trailed off-topic haven't we?</strong> </p><p></p><p>Minimum velocity, in my opinion, varies greatly on the intended target and the bullet's construction. I've somewhat guessed at 2000fps for my uses in my rifle. Obviously if you are out there with a 45-whatever you will have to use a different number that you arrive at through research or experimentation.</p><p></p><p>If Berger says 1800fps, I would use 1800fps with those bullets unless I had reason to think otherwise.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Talkyn, post: 851074, member: 68891"] Thanks for digging up some more figures. I was running out of time before I had to leave for work! Bushman, what merit is the dispersion of this energy into the animal vs. the creation of a hole? If you use a bullet like a Berger that explodes inside the vitals, it is not the KE that stops the organs' functions, it is the nasty spray of shrapnel; the holes. Montana's 210gr hard-cast sure as heck doesn't put any energy into the animal, yet it will be dispatched very quickly. Anyone that doubts this should really see it first hand. A co-worker uses his 45-70 Marlin almost exclusively with hard-cast bullets at very moderate speeds with tremendous success on moose. We would all do well to recall that the first truly long range firearms where in calibers like the 45-70 and it's larger cousins. The trajectories are terrible, the KE figures are terrible, but the leathality is proven. [B]Gosh we've trailed off-topic haven't we?[/B] Minimum velocity, in my opinion, varies greatly on the intended target and the bullet's construction. I've somewhat guessed at 2000fps for my uses in my rifle. Obviously if you are out there with a 45-whatever you will have to use a different number that you arrive at through research or experimentation. If Berger says 1800fps, I would use 1800fps with those bullets unless I had reason to think otherwise. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Minimum Velocity Clarification
Top