cmon you guys....you really dont think energy has any affect on animals....pffffft!!!! and cmon you other guys....you really think energy does it alone.....pffffft!!!!! energy does matter for sure.....look at the damage to the tissues around the bullet hole of the next animal you kill. of course energy does not do it alone by any means...look at the wound channel of a marginal hit and ask yourself why you had to chase it so far.

OK, I by no way want to stand on the tracks of this thread. But I must admit it is hard not to post so here I am. Great video Walking Buffalo. many other great points of view as well. My coment comes with the ballistic tank that researchers fire a round into to examine the round and match to a certain barrel on a certain firearm. If the water jug test is a key indication of shock wave why when a high powered round is shot into the ballistic tank (point blank) does it not explode? A shock wave of a huge exploision has no limits and levels everything in its path, correct? If bullets created these massive shockwaves the tank to then would explode?? No? Anyone see mythbusters when the they did the tests of shooting into a pool? Ok not as scientific as a major universitiy study but visable slow motion footage of bullet behavior. Bullets either lost energy so rapidly they would not break skin after 12"-18" of travel in the water. They also tried a high powered super fast tactical rifle that was rendered completely usless as bullets completely fragmented on impact with the water. In the high speed footage they showed there was no destructive wave killing machine. The water simply absorbed the bullets energy fast enough to take the leathal energy away. thus confirming the op's opening post. My thoughts here are that the op's artical holds a lot of merit. The video that walking buffalo post does prove that rappid expanding bullets and velocity can spread the damage, but I do not agree that this is a shock wave. It is merely a case of bug meets windshield. Great post here guys, anytime highly regarded scientist's argue a point there has to be merit for us gun toting rednecks to disagree!:argue2::thinking-006::love0025:

209 where is all of your facts on this as you keep telling us that it is not energy transfer? I have had this same arguement with alot of people and you are wrong.... ENERGY DOES KILL. Extra holes are needed do to bullets that dont transfer energy such as #%!*@^ Bullets.Sorry chuck Holes kill but energy transfer in the holes kill alot better.:)

Try and tell your thoughts to our "True Hero's" who are fighting over sea's who are killed by road side bombs and bullets. Another hole and energy combination is the bovine manure that comes out of your mouth.

Good example on the TNT Bud! Lots of energy from that stick, however the "over opinionated" want a be experts will have to rush to their text books for the answer to your theory. Their indepth conversation takes the spirit out of hunting and shooting.

wow long read some interesting thoughts. I must say I am glad felt recoil on my rifle is about 70lbs over the couple thousand ft lbs delivered by the bullet in those first few hundred yards.

I understand the seat belt analogy but the energy is absorbed over a large area and is not transfered to a pin point location. Yet the energy in and of it`s self is not likely to kill it certainly will knock an animal down then if the blood loss, organ damage is adequate it is unlikely that the animal will get up.

Getting tagged while wearing body armor with a 9mm certainly would not be anything like a magnum rifle even if the body armor did prevent penetration.

Does the energy itself kill?Not likely,but then again ,bullets that create a permanent wound channel with a larger volume normally transfer more energy to the target,which usually results in quicker kills.

An exceptional example, if you are a believer of Roy Weatherby's Hydroscopic shockwave school of thought the energy released would incapacitate you. In actual fact this hand in the water test wouldn't be a fair test as your hand isn't 100% water and even though the temporary wound channel in the water would move much faster than it could in the hand it still would do nothing to the hand or the person's cns.

Yes lots of energy in that stick is right and comparing the energy in explosives is like comparing a mouse to an elephant. Somethings just can't be equated to one another.

:thinking-006: OK I just got to ask, how does "energy transfer in the holes kill alot better."?
Explain that one please? What does the energy transfer do to kill better?

LOL...all great examples if we threw TNT, set roadside bombs or dropped neuclear bombs on deer but we don't. Your little stroll down Reductum Ad Absurdum lane has been entertaining but not overly poignant to the conversation. Lets stick to shooting small metal projectiles at high velocities at large animals and you might actually learn something today. :)

For awhile, it appeared as though this thread would remain constructive and I was tempted to join the discussion. Unfortunately, once the drive to be correct surpassed some posters' intellectual capabilities, insults arose and productive dialogue ceased. Everyone's loss.

Bobby B.

Join in Bob it is always easy to ignore the ridiculous.

Even better Rich How come in alberta or anywhere else do we need to shoot bullets that expand in stead of FMJ???? If holes kill and not the transfer of energy this should not matter.Why is it?????

While expanding bullets certainly do increase the amount of energy transferred to the animal,they also create much larger permanent wound channels.Larger permanent wound channels,usually produce quicker kills than a small wound channel in a similar location.

Yes I agree. But energy transfer does nothing according to Rich and Chuck. That is why I would love to here the other answer that they have.:thinking-006:

Both the expanding and the fMJ strike with the same amount of energy, if energy kills why does the fmj do such a poor job of killing? You tell me where all that deadly energy is.

Do you have your answer yet as to why energy transfer (ET) is not the cause of death? If not, how about you tell us how ET kills.

As you are an experienced and very successful rifle and archery hunter, I look forward to your explanation.

The fmj will likely zip through the animal and not release all of its energy to the permanent wound channel. The soft point bullet will expand and slow to a stop in the animal releasing all of it's energy in the animal. The more radial release of energy will create a much bigger permanent wound channel doing way more damage. Some of the damage in the permanent wound channel will be from the radial shockwave and not from actual bullet contact by itself.
It is a combination of of bullet and shockwave damage in the permanent wound channel that is facilitated by the total enegy release of the bullet.
Can I get away with this one, 209?

OK here's what I don't get. Someone here states his beliefs on a subject. Someone else disagrees and asks for proof. That's what this board is all about. Personally I would try to find my own proof and post that but whatever. Person #1 provides the proof that person #2 asks for. A couple of times actually. Now person #2 doesn't like that proof so is asking for more or different proof. To top it all off somebody else throws in comments that are so not even remotely close to comparable it is laughable at best. This has been a good read. Lets keep it going.

Also guys, its OK to be informed and change an opinion or modify that opinion if there is evidence to support it. If someone can provide enough evidence, I'll be man enough to say I was wrong.

Clakjp. So does an FMJ not have any energy? One would assume that a pill of same diameter (say .308), weight (say 165) and speed (say 2850 fps) would have the same energy when it strikes the animal regardless of the bullet construction. If this hydrostatic wave theory is true, the FMJ should start a wave and destroy as much as the standard hunting bullet. Since it doesn't, then we are back to the idea of a temporary wound cavity bouncing back and the opening bullet simply destroying more tissues as it blows on thru. At least that's the way I see it.

I shoot a .257 Roberts and a 7MM Rem mag. The 7 is pushing 140 grain pills at 3200 fps. The 1/4 bore is pushing 100 grain pills at 3000ish fps. The 7 obviously has way more energy and in theory a bigger shock wave. Why is it that almost all of the deer I shoot with the bigger gun go farther than the little gun? Almost every deer shot with that .257 Roberts dies instantly. Bang flop! The deer shot with the 7 never go far, usually less than 40 yards, but they are rarely bang flops.

There's one to ponder for you. Yes shot placement is the same for me. I always aim for the lung area.

This sounds like a very interesting idea.... just like dynamite fishing, im willing to bet my 7mmRM bullet through the left side of the bag of water while the fish was safely in the right side, just might kill that fish from the shock... Explode no, but die? Im betting on yes....

Also would the fish die easier if you used a milk jug over a zippy bag?

Interesting stuff.

I have a hunch that withholding your comments would be a loss to all of us.

Don't let a couple of crude posts interfere with an educational thread. Please join in with your comments.

DK

Yup. Don't drink the kool aid.lol

There is a reason that police's bean bag guns are called less lethal and they are trained to not shoot for the chest. Because they have killed people with not puncturing any skin. The heart can stop from the instant shock. No broken bones or frangments in the body at all... They are lethal weapons just by shocking you.

the reason a cop doesnt die when taking a hit to his bullet proof vest is the vest spreads the pressures out so much that it only bruises the area. Low pressure over a large area......

Large pressure over a small area is why bean bag guns kill.

Have you done this before WTJ? LMFAO!

No one's really answered my question above???? What stun's \knocks deer out when they are hit in the antler's with Bullets???:mad0100:

Who said I was The one shooting?

Good points!

you tell us.:thinking-006: