THEY ARE ALL VERY LIGHT AND VERY FAST

[Greg Page]

I was thinking about a compelling archery comparison that James Muhlbeier shared over on the Hammerbullets forum. It really drove home to me that a lot of the fine distinctions we examine and compare in external and terminal ballistics are pretty insignificant in the light of 50,000+ years of hunting history. Maybe 99.9% of the big game harvested since the Ice Ages has been with a 3-6 lb projectile thrown at under 40fps. (with somewhat less than MOA accuracy) By these historical standards, even a 1/18th lb (405gr) slug from a 45-70 at 1700fps is an ultra lightweight, hypervelocity round!

Basically, when it comes to ANY modern Cartridge/Bullet, They are ALL VERY VERY LIGHT AND VERY VERY FAST. In the context of thousands of years successfully hunting with Wood and Stone spears, is it splitting hairs to suggest a 1/54th of a pound (130gr) projectile from my 7RM is simply "too light" for Elk, while the "much heavier" 1/40th of a pound (175gr) is a great choice? Really? Can I tell the difference when I hold them in my hand? And does an impact at 3100fps from a 6.5PRC actually provide dramatically greater shock value or "killing power" on the target than the same projectile at 2300fps from my Grendel? Or are they both INSANELY fast in the grand scheme of things? The terminal ballistics of modern bullets are SO removed from, so entirely different than that of traditional spears and arrows that it requires a rethinking of what factors really matter. I would suggest that Elmer Kieth and Roy Weatherby both occupy functionally identical positions at the extreme far end of the weight-vs-velocity continuum, when charted against the slow, heavy, yet remarkably effective hunting weapons of our ancestors.

 

[Mikecr]

Well, if I were still a Komodo Dragon, I'd bite ankles to kill.
But as a human hunter, I've taken a different evolutionary path.
That's what this is

 

[longestrange]

A boy with a sling beats a giant with a spear any day.

 

[Ingwe]

I was thinking about a compelling archery comparison that James Muhlbeier shared over on the Hammerbullets forum. It really drove home to me that a lot of the fine distinctions we examine and compare in external and terminal ballistics are pretty insignificant in the light of 50,000+ years of hunting history. Maybe 99.9% of the big game harvested since the Ice Ages has been with a 3-6 lb projectile thrown at under 40fps. (with somewhat less than MOA accuracy) By these historical standards, even a 1/18th lb (405gr) slug from a 45-70 at 1700fps is an ultra lightweight, hypervelocity round!

Basically, when it comes to ANY modern Cartridge/Bullet, They are ALL VERY VERY LIGHT AND VERY VERY FAST. In the context of thousands of years successfully hunting with Wood and Stone spears, is it splitting hairs to suggest a 1/54th of a pound (130gr) projectile from my 7RM is simply "too light" for Elk, while the "much heavier" 1/40th of a pound (175gr) is a great choice? Really? Can I tell the difference when I hold them in my hand? And does an impact at 3100fps from a 6.5PRC actually provide dramatically greater shock value or "killing power" on the target than the same projectile at 2300fps from my Grendel? Or are they both INSANELY fast in the grand scheme of things? The terminal ballistics of modern bullets are SO removed from, so entirely different than that of traditional spears and arrows that it requires a rethinking of what factors really matter. I would suggest that Elmer Kieth and Roy Weatherby both occupy functionally identical positions at the extreme far end of the weight-vs-velocity continuum, when charted against the slow, heavy, yet remarkably effective hunting weapons of our ancestors.

Great insight! Always interesting when people think outside the box.

Should be a good (and unique) thread

 

[QuietTexan]

I shoot the deer with the 22LR and it runs away. I shoot the deer with a 300 RUM and it falls down. Caveman picks the 300 RUM. Didn't have to be too evolved to make that choice.

We also used to chase bison off a clift instead of using spears. Anyone want to go to Yellowstone and sign up for Pamploma on the Prarie?

To answer your question though. The wounding mechanism of a spear is slicing tissue. A rifle bullet wounds by cavitation in soft tissue in addition to creating a permanent wound channel. Yes, there is a difference in the cavitation damage between the two rifle cartridges you listed because the temporary damage cavity is larger when there is more retained energy in the projectile. Bringing a spear into a debate about rifle cartridges is pointless because they cause death by different mechanisms.

Kinetic energy is 1/2 mass times velocity squared. This helps to explain why wounds produced by projectiles of higher mass and/or higher velocity produce greater tissue disruption than projectiles of lower mass and velocity. The velocity of the bullet is a more important determinant of tissue injury. Although both mass and velocity contribute to the overall energy of the projectile, the energy is proportional to the mass while proportional to the square of its velocity. As a result, for constant velocity, if the mass is doubled, the energy is doubled; however, if the velocity of the bullet is doubled, the energy increases four times

So yes, the extra 800 FPS really does matter.