Minimum Fps at impact or minimum Ft/lbs, what do you use?

[Homesteader]

I agree with Stinky, we're getting off track, but I can't resist this.

Originally Posted by Devlin

Energy is not velocity squared. It's velocity by mass. What you're thinking of is when you double the velocity with the same amount of mass you square the energy.

Velocity x Mass= Momentum
1/2Mass x [Velocity Squared]= Kinetic Energy

Here's some light reading for us http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b...ics/myths.html

[aulrich]

OK Stinky here is one but for high velocity expanding bullets

Deer
1300 fpe at contact and depending on bullet (2000 -1400) fps at contact bullet 100 grains or heavier SD in the .225 range (the equivalent of a 150 grain 30 cal)

or

Coyotes

400ftlbs at contact most any varmint bullet will do

[Devlin]

Originally Posted by Homesteader

I agree with Stinky, we're getting off track, but I can't resist this.




Velocity x Mass= Momentum
1/2Mass x [Velocity Squared]= Kinetic Energy

Here's some light reading for us http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b...ics/myths.html

When I said it's velocity by mass I meant it's not velocity squared alone. It's (grains by V^2)/450437.

My point was dismissing energy and using only velocity as his guideline is incorrect. It's the combination of velocity and mass.

I shouldn't say you square the resultant kinetic energy by doubling velocity, you double the velocity you quadruple the energy.

[Devlin]

Originally Posted by 209x50

2000 FPE! Gadzooks! While there is no arguing that more is better, at the same time FPE was first used as a marketing tool for new calibers 800 FPE was the gold standard. Your choice of bullet and its construction is far more important than the energy it is packing.

800 fps won't give you bullet expansion. Straight from Barnes....

"Barnes Original bullets are designed to begin expansion at impact velocities in excess of 1600 fps and are at their best at impact velocities in excess of 1800 fps."

I use 2000 fps because it allows for some error.

edit: I just realized you said FPE not FPS, my bad.

Yes, you don't need 2000 ft/lb to kill an animal, if you read my post I said you need that kind of energy if you want to push throug a shoulder/bones etc. If you're shooting through the ribs it's far mroe than you need. I'd agree that 800 ft/lb is probably plenty for a broadside shot.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Devlin

800 fps won't give you bullet expansion. Straight from Barnes....

"Barnes Original bullets are designed to begin expansion at impact velocities in excess of 1600 fps and are at their best at impact velocities in excess of 1800 fps."

I use 2000 fps because it allows for some error.

Barnes aren't the only bullets used today....

[Devlin]

Just to give an example I hit a white tail buck this year straight in the chest from the front. The bullet went the length of him and busted his hip stopping under the hide. That's pretty awesome penetration but was also at a whack load of kinetic energy.

I was shooting a 180gr TSX at 2950 FPS. The resultant energy at the range of 100yds approx that I shot the animal was about 3000 ft/lb and about 2770 fps.

Knowing that I wouldnt' shoot a big animal like an elk froma front quartering shot without having plenty of energy on tap. The reason being that things can go wrong and if you happen to hit in the shoulder you need to be able to go through all that mass and bone.

800 FPE wouldn't cut it in that case.

[Devlin]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Barnes aren't the only bullets used today....

Ok then, how about Nosler..

""Hunting With Nosler Bullets" states that Ballistic Tip bullets will expand satisfactorily at impact velocities as low as 1700 fps. No other specific velocity/expansion data is provided."

[Devlin]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Barnes aren't the only bullets used today....

Swift...

"Swift reports that in their testing Scirocco bullets mushroomed effectively at impact velocities from 1440 fps to 3000 fps, retaining an average 70% of their original weight."

I think you get the idea. And since you can't have velocity and a bullet with sufficient mass to give you a good S.D. without having high K.E. then yes, you're looking at probably 2000+ FPE.

I shoot a 180gr at 2950 ftps from a 300WSM. I don't drop below 2000 FPE until 500 yards. It's not that I need 2000+ FPE but I do need 2000+FPS and I need a sectional density of >.270 for the distances I want to shoot.

This results in high FPE whether you want it or not! It doesn't hurt though so I'm not sure of what your point is.

edit: sorry, I just ran my numbers and I drop below 2000FPE at 400 yards, not 500 yards. At 500 I'm still carrying almost 1800FPE though and 2200+ FPS.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Devlin

Just to give an example I hit a white tail buck this year straight in the chest from the front. The bullet went the length of him and busted his hip stopping under the hide. That's pretty awesome penetration but was also at a whack load of kinetic energy.

I was shooting a 180gr TSX at 2950 FPS. The resultant energy at the range of 100yds approx that I shot the animal was about 3000 ft/lb and about 2770 fps.

Knowing that I wouldnt' shoot a big animal like an elk froma front quartering shot without having plenty of energy on tap. The reason being that things can go wrong and if you happen to hit in the shoulder you need to be able to go through all that mass and bone.

800 FPE wouldn't cut it in that case.

I see your confusion, the kill zone isn't in the rear of the animal the heart and lungs are only a couple of inches under the hide from the front Hope that helps you out.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Devlin

Swift...

"Swift reports that in their testing Scirocco bullets mushroomed effectively at impact velocities from 1440 fps to 3000 fps, retaining an average 70% of their original weight."

I think you get the idea. And since you can't have velocity and a bullet with sufficient mass to give you a good S.D. without having high K.E. then yes, you're looking at probably 2000+ FPE.

I shoot a 180gr at 2950 ftps from a 300WSM. I don't drop below 2000 FPE until 500 yards. It's not that I need 2000+ FPE but I do need 2000+FPS and I need a sectional density of >.270 for the distances I want to shoot.

This results in high FPE whether you want it or not! It doesn't hurt though so I'm not sure of what your point is.

edit: sorry, I just ran my numbers and I drop below 2000FPE at 400 yards, not 500 yards. At 500 I'm still carrying almost 1800FPE though and 2200+ FPS.

Quoting FPE numbers for bullets has so long been an advertising tool that we have entire generations that believe nothing else.
This is a moose shoulder bone. the range was 210 yards, according to my ballistics program my bullet had less than 1100 FPE left in the tank. But WTH!, look at the job it did. Don't believe everything you read.

[Devlin]

Originally Posted by 209x50

I see your confusion, the kill zone isn't in the rear of the animal the heart and lungs are only a couple of inches under the hide from the front Hope that helps you out.

No kidding? The heart and lungs are in the front?

If the bullet had hit in the shoulder instead of the ribs it clearly wouldn't have run the length of the animal.

Obviously the example was to illustrate penetration, I didn't think that needed to be spelled out for anybody. Guess I was wrong.

Use whatever bullet you want, having more power comes with little negative side affect aside from recoil so to each there own.


BTW, your example with the moose contradicts what you said a few posts ago about 800 FPE being the gold standard.

[Devlin]

BTW, If you actually pay attention to the content of my posts I said that energy isn't the measure that matters. You need FPS to expand the bullet and you need a sufficiently large bullet ( SD ) to get penetration.

Shooting a 30 cal if you desire a 270 SD and 2000+ fps at a reasonable range you can't NOT have high energy numbers.

The K.E. has nothing to do with any of it. The only thing that matters is penetrating the animal to put a hole in it's lungs.

[Copidosoma]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Quoting FPE numbers for bullets has so long been an advertising tool that we have entire generations that believe nothing else.
This is a moose shoulder bone. the range was 210 yards, according to my ballistics program my bullet had less than 1100 FPE left in the tank. But WTH!, look at the job it did. Don't believe everything you read.

Wow, that didn't look effective at all

Given that the manufacturers have designated minimum design specs as far as velocity at impact I'd tend to think that this is a really good number to keep in mind as a minimum. You can get all the penetration you want but if a bullet doesn't open up, you are going to likely have a tough tracking job.

Obviously, some bullets are fussier than others which is why it is important to know the limits of the bullet you use.

My vote is for minimum velocity (for the bullet you use) as the limiter on range. As long as you exceed that you are likely to have the energy to do the deed (given proper shot placement)

[Devlin]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Quoting FPE numbers for bullets has so long been an advertising tool that we have entire generations that believe nothing else.
This is a moose shoulder bone. the range was 210 yards, according to my ballistics program my bullet had less than 1100 FPE left in the tank. But WTH!, look at the job it did. Don't believe everything you read.

Out of curiousity what gun were you shooting when you shot that moose? 1100 ft/lb at 200 yds does seem light. That's 30-30 territory. No offense intended but I think most people, old and young, would think a 30-30 a little light for 200 yard shots at moose.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Devlin

Use whatever bullet you want, having more power comes with little negative side affect aside from recoil so to each there own.

I didn't say there was anything wrong but obviously your 2000 fpe minimum comes at a price.

BTW, your example with the moose contradicts what you said a few posts ago about 800 FPE being the gold standard.

How so? The 800 FPE was quoted as a minimum for ethically taking of game by the old time writers like Elmer Kieth.
The point I was making was that even though I did hit the shoulder and I didn't have 2000 FPE as you stated was the minimum for the safe penetration of a shoulder, the bullet still got it done.
Another point, SD is such an archaic term in today's world of premium bullets (like the TSX you use) as to be meaningless. In the days lead bullets and early forays into jacketed bullets the SD was very important, today it has very little meaning.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Devlin

Out of curiousity what gun were you shooting when you shot that moose? 11 ft/lb at 200 yds does seem light. That's 30-30 territory. No offense intended but I think most people, old and young, would think a 30-30 a little light for 200 yard shots at moose.

None taken, and please don't be offended but your statement shows an extreme lack of experience. It doesn't matter whether that moose was shot at 210 or 21 yards all that bullet had for FPE was just under 1100.
It wasn't shot with a 30-30 there are plenty on here that know what it was shot with so I'll leave it at that.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Copidosoma

Wow, that didn't look effective at all

Given that the manufacturers have designated minimum design specs as far as velocity at impact I'd tend to think that this is a really good number to keep in mind as a minimum. You can get all the penetration you want but if a bullet doesn't open up, you are going to likely have a tough tracking job.

Obviously, some bullets are fussier than others which is why it is important to know the limits of the bullet you use.

My vote is for minimum velocity (for the bullet you use) as the limiter on range. As long as you exceed that you are likely to have the energy to do the deed (given proper shot placement)

Exactly! There are many different styles of constructing bullets today and some of them are speed sensitive, in those cases it is best to follow the manufacturers recommendations.

[Devlin]

Originally Posted by 209x50

I didn't say there was anything wrong but obviously your 2000 fpe minimum comes at a price.



How so? The 800 FPE was quoted as a minimum for ethically taking of game by the old time writers like Elmer Kieth.
The point I was making was that even though I did hit the shoulder and I didn't have 2000 FPE as you stated was the minimum for the safe penetration of a shoulder, the bullet still got it done.
Another point, SD is such an archaic term in today's world of premium bullets (like the TSX you use) as to be meaningless. In the days lead bullets and early forays into jacketed bullets the SD was very important, today it has very little meaning.

Geeez man, I never said that 2000 ft/lb is a minimum I'm saying that more is better. Don't put words in my mouth.

I've also said several times that it's not the energy, it's velocity to open the bullet that matters. You can't have the velocity without the energy.

I'm going to believe the minimum velocity from the manufacture, why wouldn't I?

And I do take some offense to the experience comment. Just because we have differing philosophies doesn't make you wiser.

The point of the thread is what minimum FPS and energy do people go by. I maintain you need 2000 FPS (or thereabouts, depending on bullet).

So if you're so smart what minimum velocities do you think you need to kill big game? You're going elk hunting, what bullet adn what FPS are you going to load for?

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Devlin

And I do take some offense to the experience comment. Just because we have differing philosophies doesn't make you wiser.

I never said your comment made me wiser, it made you seem inexpirienced. You question a persons choice of a bullet/caliber and then dream up a cartridge that fits and (I'll quote so I get it right)

No offense intended but I think most people, old and young, would think a 30-30 a little light for 200 yard shots at moose.

I really don't care what most people would think if I had killed that moose with the 30-30 I would continue to do so as long as it was legal. As it is I've killed multiple animals at that range with that rifle and will continue to do so. So relax it doesn't make me right and you wrong just differnt.

[Devlin]

Fair enough. I didn't say you shot it with a 30-30, I said it had to be in that power range so was curious. I could guess at all kinds of guns but 30-30 seemed reasonable.

[Pathfinder76]

Ahh never mind

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by chuck

Dick, where you actually serious when you made that comment highlighted above? It ticks me off a little and want to make sure you meant it.

Frankly Mr. Nelson, your attitude towards sceintific evidence contray to your put a hole in it and watch it bleed ticks me off.
Lets just agree to disagree, and let this thread go where it does.

Good night.

[Pathfinder76]

Dick,

Bully someone else.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Hydrostatic shock, where on earth did this misnomer come from? It is accredited to Roy Weatherby who is said to have coined it to help sales of his hyper velocity calibers. A bullet strike event is anything but "static"! A proper term might be hydrodynamic, but the fact is there isn't enough readily available contiguous fluid in the body to create a hydro dynamic event. The blood is contained in very small veins and capillaries and tests have shown that elastic limit of these vessels is never reached only mere inches from the impact. The shock wave you video is the result of the creation of the temporary wound cavity and while it is awe inspiring to watch the results have pretty much been as Chuck describes for me. Bullets kill through crushing flesh by the shrapnel field and the actually passage of the bullet. Many folks don't seem to understand that all the blood and assorted goo in the chest cavity wasn't there when they pulled the trigger but drained there once the closed system (respiratory, circulatory) was breached by the bullet.

The static part does not refer to the bullet but the fliuds and soft tissue it hits.
Cat

[Leverboy]

I dropped a moose north of Fort Mac with a .38-55 chugging a hard cast 245 grainer along at 1600fps. I'd be lucky if it hit it with 1000 ft lbs of energy. A 50 BMG wouldn't have dropped that moose any faster or harder. That experience really opened my eyes to slow heavy bullets.

[6tmile]

Originally Posted by Leverboy

I dropped a moose north of Fort Mac with a .38-55 chugging a hard cast 245 grainer along at 1600fps. I'd be lucky if it hit it with 1000 ft lbs of energy. A 50 BMG wouldn't have dropped that moose any faster or harder. That experience really opened my eyes to slow heavy bullets.

x10 I found this very interesting, I watched mythbusters last year about bullet penetration in water, the 45 acp, 12 gauge shot gun, would out penetrate 30-06 and 50 cal rifles, I was at the time experimenting with some reloads for my guide gun in 45-70, I was pushing 420 grain hard cast at 2000 ft per second. shooting into edmonton phone books the penetration was good aprox 14 inches, bullets loaded down to 1650fps penetrated in some instances up to 3 inches deeper, This made me realize that "slower can be gooder than faster"

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by 6tmile

x10 I found this very interesting, I watched mythbusters last year about bullet penetration in water, the 45 acp, 12 gauge shot gun, would out penetrate 30-06 and 50 cal rifles, I was at the time experimenting with some reloads for my guide gun in 45-70, I was pushing 420 grain hard cast at 2000 ft per second. shooting into edmonton phone books the penetration was good aprox 14 inches, bullets loaded down to 1650fps penetrated in some instances up to 3 inches deeper, This made me realize that "slower can be gooder than faster"

The real surprise there was the .223 FMJ's came apart when they hit the water!!
IIRC they shot a musket in that test as well, and it penetrated the most.

Slow moving, hard cast bullets work differently than jacketed jobs, and that is exactly why the jacketed bullet was desigined - to withstand the higher velocity needed to make the smaller bullets perform well.
Given a choice I usually choose "bigger slower" as well!
Cat

[sbtennex]

Why do you think us .45-70 shooters stay out of the fray when guys start spouting questionable physics theories to back up outlandish claims to support hyper-speed, super on-paper light bullet ballistics and so on? We sit back, laugh and know that when we shoots 'em they gets real dead real fast - 350 grains at 2100 fps NUMBS 'EM.

[aulrich]

Ahh the old Kieth vs O'Conner dead horse comes out .... Again

News flash they were both right just for differnt reasons.