How much energy?

[Kurt505]

On the Grendel thread it was mentioned there's a minimum amount of energy required to make a human kill. Does anyone know what the magic number is?

[elkhunter11]

As long as the bullet has enough velocity to expand , what does it matter?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

As long as the bullet has enough velocity to expand , what does it matter?

That was my thinking. If the bullet does what it was designed for it should be lethal.

[Dick284]

There’s the much flaunted value of 1000ftlbs or retained energy thrown around.

But it all goes sideways when you start to think about things like Bella Twin and the Griz she killed, and it all goes insanely sideways when you consider the energy imparted by archery tackle.

Surprisingly the 1000ftlbs of energy seems to follow the minimum impact velocities for reliable expansion of conventional cup core hunting projectiles.
1600 ft/sec. more or less.

Hers some good reads on the subject.

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammo/...pound-fallacy/

https://whitetail.winchester.com/201...impact-energy/

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Dick284

There’s the much flaunted value of 1000ftlbs or retained energy thrown around.

But it all goes sideways when you start to think about things like Bella Twin and the Griz she killed, and it all goes insanely sideways when you consider the energy imparted by archery tackle.

Surprisingly the 1000ftlbs of energy seems to follow the minimum impact velocities for reliable expansion of conventional cup core hunting projectiles.
1600 ft/sec. more or less.

Ahhh yes, Bella Twin, the ultimate example of shot placement!

[Salavee]

Here it is ..

[Grizzly Adams]

Nip an artery and it wouldn't take much.

Grizz

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Ahhh yes, Bella Twin, the ultimate example of shot placement!

That it was. A perfect brain shot from about 6 feet.

[Pathfinder76]

How many bovine have been killed with the 22lr?

[Pathfinder76]

Expansion is not necessary to kill either.

[Kurt505]

If you were to go with the 1000ft pounds energy and 1500fps theory, the factory Winchester 142gr Nosler long range accubonds seem like a great option, even if you were to use 1500ft pounds and 2000fps they would good to nearly 500yds. In reality, how many animals are shot at over 500yds?

[Dick284]

If I could recommend one single thing, that would be, less Internet, and more trigger time.

You are mired in over thinking stuff, but given your current state of affairs, how are you healing up?

I can say un equvically that when you exceed the velocity threshold of a bullet they simply don’t expand.

This thread and posts #73 lays it all out.
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showt...=306149&page=3

We recovered one of the two pills that hit the buck, and expansion was barely past the ogive on the bullet.(1869ft/s, 1160ftlbs)

The doe was a through and through, exit and entrance wounds were as close to identical as we could tell.(1728ft/s, 995ftlbs)

Until you chronograph the factory ammo(you really should reload this cartridge) you can pontificate till the second coming of common sense, about the numbers.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Dick284

If I could recommend one single thing, that would be, less Internet, and more trigger time.

You are mired in over thinking stuff, but given your current state of affairs, how are you healing up?

I can say un equvically that when you exceed the velocity threshold of a bullet they simply don’t expand.

This thread and posts #73 lays it all out.
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showt...=306149&page=3

We recovered one of the two pills that hit the buck, and expansion was barely past the ogive on the bullet.(1869ft/s, 1160ftlbs)

The doe was a through and through, exit and entrance wounds were as close to identical as we could tell.(1728ft/s, 995ftlbs)

Until you chronograph the factory ammo(you really should reload this cartridge) you can pontificate till the second coming of common sense, about the numbers.

I can't walk yet, but I was riding my quad today!

[Red Bullets]

I would think that if a projectile can penetrate the thin skin of a human it can kill. Sounds like 350 FPS might be that number.

A quote from the Consumer Protection Awareness Commission:

"BB guns can kill a person. High-velocity BB
guns, which have muzzle velocities higher than
350 feet per second, can increase this risk. The
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has
reports of about 4 deaths per year caused by BB
guns or pellet rifles.

[antlercarver]

Is the post about human or humane

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by antlercarver

Is the post about human or humane

Lol, just noticed that.

It's supposed to be humane

[Red Bullets]

X 2

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

On the Grendel thread it was mentioned there's a minimum amount of energy required to make a human kill. Does anyone know what the magic number is?

Bud, you have got to be REALLY bored to be doing this. Do you need a ride to the range?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Dean2

Bud, you have got to be REALLY bored to be doing this. Do you need a ride to the range?

You have no idea!

I'm here at my range. I need someone to set up the bench, set up my targets, then grab my rifle and ammo.

Shouldn't be too much longer, a week or two and I should be limping around without crutches

[Don_Parsons]

Glad to hear your doing better Kurt, that's what really counts.

Like Cat mentioned on another thread, there are no 100% absolute's when Harvesting game.

Nathan did a good job writing this article, he has a book on this from what I heard.

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Kno...e+Killing.html

You'll do fine with what ever rifle cartrage you choose since your more up to speed on this then me.

Even to this day I still use the old school idea for rifle cartrages.
16 to 1800 ish ft-lbs energy for thick skins,,, 11 to 1200 ft-lbs energy for big body Deer.

So far so good.

Don

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Dean2

Bud, you have got to be REALLY bored to be doing this. Do you need a ride to the range?

Hahaha

[Stinky Coyote]

Originally Posted by Dick284

There’s the much flaunted value of 1000ftlbs or retained energy thrown around.

But it all goes sideways when you start to think about things like Bella Twin and the Griz she killed, and it all goes insanely sideways when you consider the energy imparted by archery tackle.

Surprisingly the 1000ftlbs of energy seems to follow the minimum impact velocities for reliable expansion of conventional cup core hunting projectiles.
1600 ft/sec. more or less.

Hers some good reads on the subject.

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammo/...pound-fallacy/

https://whitetail.winchester.com/201...impact-energy/

Great reads, big fan of Craig, thanks. That first link he didn't touch on s.d. at all, that incorporated would have rounded out the article completely. Here's another of his articles. Some great data in there and now touching on s.d. as the variable in penetration ability for comparing.

http://www.craigboddington.com/endor...ing-about-65mm

It's a start but something must explain the ability of those early and weak by todays standards 6.5's running 156/160 gr and able to make elephants brain pans. (i believe the early 6.5's from recollection were even slower than the early swede's by 1-200 fps, somebody can correct me if my memory has faded)

All good data to look at when you're interested in ballistics like we are and constantly looking at potential cartridge choices for new additions to the family.

[Stinky Coyote]

Originally Posted by Don_Parsons

Glad to hear your doing better Kurt, that's what really counts.

Like Cat mentioned on another thread, there are no 100% absolute's when Harvesting game.

Nathan did a good job writing this article, he has a book on this from what I heard.

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Kno...e+Killing.html

You'll do fine with what ever rifle cartrage you choose since your more up to speed on this then me.

Even to this day I still use the old school idea for rifle cartrages.
16 to 1800 ish ft-lbs energy for thick skins,,, 11 to 1200 ft-lbs energy for big body Deer.

So far so good.

Don

Another great link with gobs of info to absorb. One comment i skimmed was this one and agree completely for a slightly different reason perhaps.

"For example, you may load the .375 caliber 260 grain Accubond for an African trip. And while this works exceptionally well on some larger bodied game, you might be in for a world of hurt if you try to tackle a cape buffalo with this bullet and find that it completely runs out of steam before reaching vitals."

s.d. of that is .264 (a 140 gr 6.5 is .287)

but the s.d. of a a 300 gr accubond is up to .305 (a 147 gr 6.5 is .301)

do agree that bullet design, construction, and game intended dictates whether you're after deepest penetration or otherwise...but i guess the story shows more to me that when depth of penetration becomes more important factor than most then s.d. should be the number considered first, right with adequate impact velocities for the game intended, and then of course bullet construction for intended game, from frangible to solids, pointed to flat, and every ratio of that in between

hard to fathom a 6.5 140 gr accubond will drive deeper into a big critter than a .375 260 gr accubond impacting at the same velocity but that's what s.d. says...and confirms the reason those early 6.5's with 156/160's could penetrate what they did (with s.d.'s above .32)

s.d. is the magic number

million other factors but comparing same bullet construction types against each other, s.d. is the number to show which will out penetrate the other given same impact velocities, not ft/lbs, not grains of weight, not diam/caliber, definitely not headstamps

6.5 wasn't the number that made them survive or famous now, the 6.5's just happened to have, as Craig said, unusually high s.d.'s compared to most other calibers, and now it's really coming to light what the difference has been

[Salavee]

.. and this

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b...ics/myths.html

[Stinky Coyote]

Originally Posted by Salavee

.. and this

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b...ics/myths.html

holy, that is a ton of info! good stuff

admittedly after a bit i started skimming looking for the discussions around s.d. importance or relationships and didn't see any in there?

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by Stinky Coyote

Another great link with gobs of info to absorb. One comment i skimmed was this one and agree completely for a slightly different reason perhaps.

"For example, you may load the .375 caliber 260 grain Accubond for an African trip. And while this works exceptionally well on some larger bodied game, you might be in for a world of hurt if you try to tackle a cape buffalo with this bullet and find that it completely runs out of steam before reaching vitals."

s.d. of that is .264 (a 140 gr 6.5 is .287)

but the s.d. of a a 300 gr accubond is up to .305 (a 147 gr 6.5 is .301)

do agree that bullet design, construction, and game intended dictates whether you're after deepest penetration or otherwise...but i guess the story shows more to me that when depth of penetration becomes more important factor than most then s.d. should be the number considered first, right with adequate impact velocities for the game intended, and then of course bullet construction for intended game, from frangible to solids, pointed to flat, and every ratio of that in between

hard to fathom a 6.5 140 gr accubond will drive deeper into a big critter than a .375 260 gr accubond impacting at the same velocity but that's what s.d. says...and confirms the reason those early 6.5's with 156/160's could penetrate what they did (with s.d.'s above .32)

s.d. is the magic number

million other factors but comparing same bullet construction types against each other, s.d. is the number to show which will out penetrate the other given same impact velocities, not ft/lbs, not grains of weight, not diam/caliber, definitely not headstamps

6.5 wasn't the number that made them survive or famous now, the 6.5's just happened to have, as Craig said, unusually high s.d.'s compared to most other calibers, and now it's really coming to light what the difference has been

SD ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Sure it’s a comparator, but if you look at even seemingly similarly constructed bullets, you often find they aren’t built at all that similar as one likes to think. Different jacket materials and design often are used, and some bullet manufacturers often will change the core design by using a different type of composition of material.

Kurt has good reason to be flogging all manner of questions as I’m quite sure he’s almost nuttier than squirrel crap, sitting at home healing up from his incident.

But c’mon Stinky, you’ve just about pushed the most persons boundaries of tollerence beyond belief, with your theroretical postings, re postings.

Do you have any real world experiences of your own?

Or do you just regurgitate stuff!

[Stinky Coyote]

there's method to my madness, you gotta push a bit to bring the collective up

agree it's not the magic bullet of factors

i think it's not used enough, or appropriately, when considering choices

it helps explain why people notice so much better performance on bigger game from .243's compared to the .260 rem, the 7mm-08, you can read the collective experiences from zillions of hunters all over and the credit is often given for other reasons than s.d. when it's likely s.d. was the main reason it performed better than say .243's in similar situations

i like our little forum, tons of experience here, killed lots too, have seen first hand low s.d. at high velocity on the wrong game and tons of more appropriate stuff also, and yeah a great many more here done a lot more than me too

i bet if hunters took a look back at a lot of their kills with various cartridges, loads, and the performances they experienced afield and ran the math on it, including the s.d. it would shed exactly the same light talking about here, it's a much bigger factor than one considers although for the most part if a .22 lr can kill a big grizzly bear at a few yards then it can be argued almost all of our choices now are more than adequate in a huge variety situations as presented by hunting

personally i needed to understand quite awhile ago how the early 6.5's and i believe 7's also with these heavy for caliber but lightweight bullets for game used on in africa could get the job done...and it all boiled down to s.d. and min impact velocity required to drive that s.d. deep enough, also assuming bullet constructions identical and intended for said game

just mentioning this in passing once in awhile doesn't seem to bring the overall collective up and it's still being dismissed and ignored as evidenced by all those articles from guys who've been killing stuff all over the world for ages, not saying they don't know about it, saying it's just glazed over all the time when it really seems to be answering a lot of questions or theories talked about and also proving so many things among the hunters who've killed things without realizing how important s.d. was in a particular kill

assume a lot of what i'm doing here isn't directed at the majority of guys actually "posting" as you guys are elite level ballistics nerds...assume the majority of my posting is directed at the majority who are "reading" these threads, that's where i'm trying to up the overall collective

hopefully that sheds a bit more light on my madness?

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by Stinky Coyote

there's method to my madness, you gotta push a bit to bring the collective up

agree it's not the magic bullet of factors

i think it's not used enough, or appropriately, when considering choices

it helps explain why people notice so much better performance on bigger game from .243's compared to the .260 rem, the 7mm-08, you can read the collective experiences from zillions of hunters all over and the credit is often given for other reasons than s.d. when it's likely s.d. was the main reason it performed better than say .243's in similar situations

i like our little forum, tons of experience here, killed lots too, have seen first hand low s.d. at high velocity on the wrong game and tons of more appropriate stuff also, and yeah a great many more here done a lot more than me too

i bet if hunters took a look back at a lot of their kills with various cartridges, loads, and the performances they experienced afield and ran the math on it, including the s.d. it would shed exactly the same light talking about here, it's a much bigger factor than one considers although for the most part if a .22 lr can kill a big grizzly bear at a few yards then it can be argued almost all of our choices now are more than adequate in a huge variety situations as presented by hunting

personally i needed to understand quite awhile ago how the early 6.5's and i believe 7's also with these heavy for caliber but lightweight bullets for game used on in africa could get the job done...and it all boiled down to s.d. and min impact velocity required to drive that s.d. deep enough, also assuming bullet constructions identical and intended for said game

just mentioning this in passing once in awhile doesn't seem to bring the overall collective up and it's still being dismissed and ignored as evidenced by all those articles from guys who've been killing stuff all over the world for ages, not saying they don't know about it, saying it's just glazed over all the time when it really seems to be answering a lot of questions or theories talked about and also proving so many things among the hunters who've killed things without realizing how important s.d. was in a particular kill

assume a lot of what i'm doing here isn't directed at the majority of guys actually "posting" as you guys are elite level ballistics nerds...assume the majority of my posting is directed at the majority who are "reading" these threads, that's where i'm trying to up the overall collective

hopefully that sheds a bit more light on my madness?

I’m off to the range, to deal with real world things.
And learn some real world shooting stuff.

[Stinky Coyote]

Originally Posted by Dick284

Long winded and miss guided is more like it.

I’m off to the range, to deal with real world things.

long winded, but not wrong

have an s.d. filled day

[marky_mark]

X2

http://sportsafield.com/the-6-5-comes-alive/
Here a little more info
Important part to read is near the end
Where he talks about what he would actually take in the field and why

Originally Posted by Dick284

Long winded and miss guided is more like it.

I’m off to the range, to deal with real world things.