cartridge killing power formula

[colroggal]

Seems simple to me, but he sums it up better than a number of other cut and dry methods of quantifying cartridges. Just plug and play.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_killing_power_list.htm

Colin

[Tactical Lever]

I think the formula that based killing power on momentum with some weight given to bullet diameter got it closest. Forget who did that one. Bell maybe?

Though I am not convinced that bullet diameter plays too big a role there, and there does need to be a velocity cut off, maybe.

And conversely, you can have big energy numbers from a super light gopher bullet. But even if it is constructed right, this is far from ideal.

I am convinced Elmer Keith had it right with a big bullet moving at moderate velocity.

[elkhunter11]

It can't take bullet construction or shot placement into account, so it's just another calculation that really can't tell you how a cartridge will perform on game animals.

[colroggal]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It can't take bullet construction or shot placement into account, so it's just another calculation that really can't tell you how a cartridge will perform on game animals.

Paragraph 6:

"The most important factor in killing power, by far, is bullet placement. The second most important factor is probably bullet terminal performance. The third most important factor is probably the physical and mental state of the game animal in question at the moment it is shot. This formula takes into account*none*of those factors. Unfortunately, those key factors are not quantifiable, at least by me. So, I am assuming that the hunter knows how to shoot, where to put the bullet, and that the bullet is appropriate for the game and conditions."

No formula gets all of it, of course. But what I particularly like about this one is it factors in range.

[gitrdun]

For what it's worth Colin, Hornady publishes their "HITS" calculator on the website.

http://www.hornady.com/hits/calculator

[colroggal]

Originally Posted by gitrdun

For what it's worth Colin, Hornady publishes their "HITS" calculator on the website.

http://www.hornady.com/hits/calculator

I didn't know about that one. Thanks Git. HITS and Chuck's meathod do seem to be different roads to the same result.

I wonder if there is a way to quantifiably rank bullet constructing? 1-10 rating where 1 is a varmint type round and ten is fmj. A second 1-10 rating for expansion and/or rate of energy transfer.

S' pose the one variable we 'should' be able to eliminate is common sense. Ya, I said it.

Colin

[leo]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

I think the formula that based killing power on momentum with some weight given to bullet diameter got it closest. Forget who did that one. Bell maybe?

That would be John "Pondoro"Taylor with his KO VALUE.

[colroggal]

Taylor definitely favoured the big bore nitro cartridges of his day. I think his KO scale was a way to fight back against the new fangled high velocity craze. But there's no arguing that a big heavy bullet won't do some damage.

Of course it doesn't consider the heavy for caliber rounds like the 6.5x55 were penetration is concerned.

Colin

[Dick284]

Taylor's KO value was also based on non expanding bullets.
The purpose of the TKO was to provide which cartridge/bullet combination was superior for head shots on game like elephant and cape buffalo.

Therefore it favoured large frontal area, and heavy weight bullets.

There's been so many cartridge comparatives and associated mathematics, over the years, and it proves only one thing. Some cartridges are better than others for a specific set of circumstances, provided all the variables remain constant.

Change the bullet construction, change the game animal, change the game presentation, and it all goes out the window in a heart beat.

These things will still be debated long after I've left the material world.
Just as they were debated long before I cast a shadow upon this earth.

More shooting and less pontificating usually trumps all system of comparison.

[CaberTosser]

Bit of an off-topic, but when I visited the ChuckHawks link a banner ad was an anti-conservative party blurb about stopping public service cuts. I thought it kind of an odd placement considering the firearms enthusiast has no other political party backing them.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It can't take bullet construction or shot placement into account, so it's just another calculation that really can't tell you how a cartridge will perform on game animals.

Amen to that. Lousy hit with a .300 Mag is no more deadly than a lousy hit with .30 carbine

Grizz

[Pathfinder76]

My killing formula? Shoot them where they live. I've done it with a myriad of cartridges quite successfully. It works!

[Au revoir, Gopher]

When someone comes up with a formula that explains how an animal missing 1/4 of its heart can run 100m into the bush, while another animal shot in the lungs drops were it stands and doesn't move again (same rifle, same load) then I might be interested... until then it doesn't mean much to me.

ARG

[grinr]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Bit of an off-topic, but when I visited the ChuckHawks link a banner ad was an anti-conservative party blurb about stopping public service cuts. I thought it kind of an odd placement considering the firearms enthusiast has no other political party backing them.

Must be the lefty Libtards targeting gun owners specifically,hoping to sway fence sitting gun owners by playing up other issues?

[DiabeticKripple]

You also gotta factor in the weights of the bullets used.

A 7mm rem mag with 150's is lower than the 30-06 with 180's, but I bet the 7mm with 180's is higher than the 30-06.