Whizzing in some folks' corn flakes...

[noahmercy]

Disclaimer: the following is my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it.

Whenever I watch a video where someone tests cartridges, muzzleloaders, or bows, there is invariably a reference to "energy" or "foot pounds". I understand that it's impressive to some, but I am apparently in the minority who feel it is an almost worthless number that rarely- if ever- reflects the effectiveness of a cartridge.

Allow me to expand on this. The formula for determining the energy of a bullet is:
E = (M x V²) ÷ 450,435 : E = energy, M = mass (weight) of the object in grains, and V= velocity in feet-per-second (FPS).

Since velocity is squared, it has a great effect on the result. For example a factory Remington 22-250 load with 55 grain bullet at 3,680 FPS has over 1,650 foot pounds (lb/ft) of muzzle energy. A factory Remington 45-70 cartridge with a 405 grain bullet at 1,330 FPS has less energy at 1,590 lb/ft. So if we went solely by energy figures, a varmint cartridge has more "power" than a buffalo cartridge. Yet if I'm fishing in Alaska, I know which one I'll choose.

"Well that's just absurd!", someone says. "Obviously that isn't a fair comparison. What about if someone is testing 45 ACP? Isn't the load with more power going to be more effective than the one with less? Isn't it a useful tool for situations like that?"

Many moons ago, a guy had a jacket swager and made up some 45 Auto bullets with balsa wood cores. Velocities were upwards of 2,000 FPS, and with the weight of the bullets, that put the energy figures well over 500 lb/ft. Impressive, right? Welllll, penetration was almost nonexistent, and they were horridly inaccurate, so effectively useless for anything but the experiment itself.

"Okay, wiseass, that's an extreme situation with a radical projectile. What about the same weight and style bullets? The faster/ more powerful one is going to be better."

Ever see tests with PMC Bronze hollowpoints? Regularly outperformed by the same cartridge launching bullets of identical weight at lower speeds/power. And it's not just the PMCs. There are many inexpensive designs that are just bad at any speed or power level, while some bullets do well even at modest velocity/energy. Good designs don't require blistering speeds to perform reliably, and some bullets perform poorly when driven too fast.

"Yeah, but there are optimal weight charts for game animals based on the power of a cartridge. You're not unethical enough to tell me they're bogus!"

I think our forefathers would argue that their anemic (by today's standards) muzzleloaders shooting dead-soft lead spheres did just fine on game animals. Millions of deer, elk, and moose were killed with guns generating less energy at 50 yards than a 357 Mag at the muzzle, and not one of those optimal game weight charts would claim that little energy was acceptable on anything bigger than an anorexic whitetail. And of course millions of the largest land animals in North America were virtually wiped out with "wimpy" cartridges like the 45-70, 45-90, and 50-90 that were less powerful than the lowly 6.5mm Creedmoor! How many animals were killed with 25-20, 32-20, 38-40, 44-40, and other "underpowered" black powder cartridges?

So energy is not the be-all, end-all that some think it to be. Bullet diameter, sectional density, and construction matter more than velocity. Simply put; if a bullet does not reach the vitals and damage them sufficiently when it gets there, it is ineffective, regardless of how many foot-pounds it's packing.

 

[Bob Wright]

I have always contended that one should put down the charts and shoot the guns into different mediums and at varying ranges. Too much emphasis is directed at performance charts.

Bob Wright

 

[contender]

Some people want to believe just one form of science., And using "energy" as a basis for their claims & beliefs,, they fail to take into account "other factors" that affect performance.
In science,, it's called a "variable."
And there are a LOT of variables in shooting an animal.
I guess they use the "energy" argument as a way to sound intelligent.

I like showing these same people how my "underpowered" handgun can & will kill big animals cleanly & with one shot.

 

[Dan in MI]

You’re making the traditional archery argument of momentum versus KE...

 

[noahmercy]

You’re making the traditional archery argument of momentum versus KE...

Right? Plenty of animals killed with self-bows and even hand-thrown spears with puny velocity/energy numbers. Don't need 400+ FPS to kill game, although it does make range estimation errors less important for those who are married to technology and don't shoot instinctively.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

So energy is not the be-all, end-all that some think it to be. Bullet diameter, sectional density, and construction matter more than velocity. Simply put; if a bullet does not reach the vitals and damage them sufficiently when it gets there, it is ineffective, regardless of how many foot-pounds it's packing.

. . . pointing out that bullet placement is of major importance.

 

[GunnyGene]

Along a similar vein today, I was standing in the check out line juggling 4 boxes of CCI .22wmr and a bottle of bourbon in my hands. A lady ahead of me noticed the ammo and asked what it was. I showed her the label on one of the boxes, and she said (expressing some mild wonderment): "those are a lot longer than the .22 bullets I have", (spreading her thumb & fore finger to indicate a lr length cartridge). "It's .22 magnum"; I replied, "for a rifle I have and is somewhat more powerful than your .22long rifle". Which seemed to satisfy her, so I didn't pursue any educational opportunities regarding the mathematics of ballistics, and it was her turn at the register.

 

[ediogenes]

Wait, what?! You can buy bullets AND bourbon in the same store? Almost makes me wanna move to Mississippi.

 

[caryc]

Disclaimer: the following is my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it.

Whenever I watch a video where someone tests cartridges, muzzleloaders, or bows, there is invariably a reference to "energy" or "foot pounds". I understand that it's impressive to some, but I am apparently in the minority who feel it is an almost worthless number that rarely- if ever- reflects the effectiveness of a cartridge.

Allow me to expand on this. The formula for determining the energy of a bullet is:
E = (M x V²) ÷ 450,435 : E = energy, M = mass (weight) of the object in grains, and V= velocity in feet-per-second (FPS).

Since velocity is squared, it has a great effect on the result. For example a factory Remington 22-250 load with 55 grain bullet at 3,680 FPS has over 1,650 foot pounds (lb/ft) of muzzle energy. A factory Remington 45-70 cartridge with a 405 grain bullet at 1,330 FPS has less energy at 1,590 lb/ft. So if we went solely by energy figures, a varmint cartridge has more "power" than a buffalo cartridge. Yet if I'm fishing in Alaska, I know which one I'll choose.

"Well that's just absurd!", someone says. "Obviously that isn't a fair comparison. What about if someone is testing 45 ACP? Isn't the load with more power going to be more effective than the one with less? Isn't it a useful tool for situations like that?"

Many moons ago, a guy had a jacket swager and made up some 45 Auto bullets with balsa wood cores. Velocities were upwards of 2,000 FPS, and with the weight of the bullets, that put the energy figures well over 500 lb/ft. Impressive, right? Welllll, penetration was almost nonexistent, and they were horridly inaccurate, so effectively useless for anything but the experiment itself.

"Okay, wiseass, that's an extreme situation with a radical projectile. What about the same weight and style bullets? The faster/ more powerful one is going to be better."

Ever see tests with PMC Bronze hollowpoints? Regularly outperformed by the same cartridge launching bullets of identical weight at lower speeds/power. And it's not just the PMCs. There are many inexpensive designs that are just bad at any speed or power level, while some bullets do well even at modest velocity/energy. Good designs don't require blistering speeds to perform reliably, and some bullets perform poorly when driven too fast.

"Yeah, but there are optimal weight charts for game animals based on the power of a cartridge. You're not unethical enough to tell me they're bogus!"

I think our forefathers would argue that their anemic (by today's standards) muzzleloaders shooting dead-soft lead spheres did just fine on game animals. Millions of deer, elk, and moose were killed with guns generating less energy at 50 yards than a 357 Mag at the muzzle, and not one of those optimal game weight charts would claim that little energy was acceptable on anything bigger than an anorexic whitetail. And of course millions of the largest land animals in North America were virtually wiped out with "wimpy" cartridges like the 45-70, 45-90, and 50-90 that were less powerful than the lowly 6.5mm Creedmoor! How many animals were killed with 25-20, 32-20, 38-40, 44-40, and other "underpowered" black powder cartridges?

So energy is not the be-all, end-all that some think it to be. Bullet diameter, sectional density, and construction matter more than velocity. Simply put; if a bullet does not reach the vitals and damage them sufficiently when it gets there, it is ineffective, regardless of how many foot-pounds it's packing.

OK Professor, you've totally lost me. I just shoot em' and see where they end up.

 

[eveled]

I have always contended that one should put down the charts and shoot the guns into different mediums and at varying ranges. Too much emphasis is directed at performance charts.

Bob Wright

I agree shooting paper only shows accuracy not about damage and energy transfer.

 

[GunnyGene]

Wait, what?! You can buy bullets AND bourbon in the same store? Almost makes me wanna move to Mississippi.

This is the local AF Base Exchange, so yes. And guns, clothing, electronics, etc. Kind of a mini Walmart but with gun stuff and a booze section. Better quality merch than Walmart also.

 

[Mobuck]

OK, you're putting way too much into this. Once upon a time terminal performance literally depended on bullet diameter and the capability of the bullet to reach the target. This changed with the development of expanding bullets so a different way to comparing bullet lethality(?) had to be found. In the process, velocity became a factor as scientific comparison between slow, fat, non-expanding bullets were compared to skinny, sleek, faster moving bullets.
Quick analogy: How do you feel about the 'new' determination that our Constitution was written with included racial connotations? Well, the old timers used what was readily available to them at the time(probably skewed by their ideas of promoting the new whizzbang cartridges) to compare old tech vs new tech.
Complain, second guess, re-think all you want but in the long run with all the new tech bullets, those muzzle energy figures are only relevant where states place a threshold on what's suitable(legal) to hunt certain species. Common sense and field knowledge is just as important as it ever was.

 

[JStacy]

. . . pointing out that bullet placement is of major importance.

I have always considered bullet placement of the prime importance in the effect. If you place a lower powered round precisely you get a dead animal. The kinetic energy formula is driven by velocity and high velocity , above 2200 FPS tends to "boil" the water in the tissues and create a larger temporary wound cavity. If the cavity is not deep enough all of your energy is wasted on the surface. The most effective man stopper round, per FBI statistics, is a 357Mag 125 HP going more than 1250 FPS. Why? It has a balance of penetration and expansion causing a larger temporary wound cavity , in humans. That load would only enrage a brown bear bent on doing you harm. Loads must be tailored to the intended target to be effective. Penetration is important or the load will not do the intended purpose. So you have velocity, to enhance the temporary wound cavity, bullet diameter, also increases size of temporary wound cavity, penetration to reach vital organs and shot placement to make all of the other factory work well . Shooting involves practice to achieve the above factors. So all of the elements combined cannot be given you by the internet or you tube you must practice to keep your skill level up or everything else is a moot point. My .02 worth.

 

[kcsteve]

Disclaimer: the following is my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it.

Whenever I watch a video where someone tests cartridges, muzzleloaders, or bows, there is invariably a reference to "energy" or "foot pounds". I understand that it's impressive to some, but I am apparently in the minority who feel it is an almost worthless number that rarely- if ever- reflects the effectiveness of a cartridge.

Allow me to expand on this. The formula for determining the energy of a bullet is:
E = (M x V²) ÷ 450,435 : E = energy, M = mass (weight) of the object in grains, and V= velocity in feet-per-second (FPS).

Since velocity is squared, it has a great effect on the result. For example a factory Remington 22-250 load with 55 grain bullet at 3,680 FPS has over 1,650 foot pounds (lb/ft) of muzzle energy. A factory Remington 45-70 cartridge with a 405 grain bullet at 1,330 FPS has less energy at 1,590 lb/ft. So if we went solely by energy figures, a varmint cartridge has more "power" than a buffalo cartridge. Yet if I'm fishing in Alaska, I know which one I'll choose.

"Well that's just absurd!", someone says. "Obviously that isn't a fair comparison. What about if someone is testing 45 ACP? Isn't the load with more power going to be more effective than the one with less? Isn't it a useful tool for situations like that?"

Many moons ago, a guy had a jacket swager and made up some 45 Auto bullets with balsa wood cores. Velocities were upwards of 2,000 FPS, and with the weight of the bullets, that put the energy figures well over 500 lb/ft. Impressive, right? Welllll, penetration was almost nonexistent, and they were horridly inaccurate, so effectively useless for anything but the experiment itself.

"Okay, wiseass, that's an extreme situation with a radical projectile. What about the same weight and style bullets? The faster/ more powerful one is going to be better."

Ever see tests with PMC Bronze hollowpoints? Regularly outperformed by the same cartridge launching bullets of identical weight at lower speeds/power. And it's not just the PMCs. There are many inexpensive designs that are just bad at any speed or power level, while some bullets do well even at modest velocity/energy. Good designs don't require blistering speeds to perform reliably, and some bullets perform poorly when driven too fast.

"Yeah, but there are optimal weight charts for game animals based on the power of a cartridge. You're not unethical enough to tell me they're bogus!"

I think our forefathers would argue that their anemic (by today's standards) muzzleloaders shooting dead-soft lead spheres did just fine on game animals. Millions of deer, elk, and moose were killed with guns generating less energy at 50 yards than a 357 Mag at the muzzle, and not one of those optimal game weight charts would claim that little energy was acceptable on anything bigger than an anorexic whitetail. And of course millions of the largest land animals in North America were virtually wiped out with "wimpy" cartridges like the 45-70, 45-90, and 50-90 that were less powerful than the lowly 6.5mm Creedmoor! How many animals were killed with 25-20, 32-20, 38-40, 44-40, and other "underpowered" black powder cartridges?

So energy is not the be-all, end-all that some think it to be. Bullet diameter, sectional density, and construction matter more than velocity. Simply put; if a bullet does not reach the vitals and damage them sufficiently when it gets there, it is ineffective, regardless of how many foot-pounds it's packing.

Energy of a bullet is nothing more than a mathematical way of showing a difference between a 100 grain bullet and a 200 grain bullet traveling the same velocity.
The velocity can be measured. Energy is a mathematical way of comparing bullets when velocity or the weight of the bullet is changed.

 

[outlaw_dogboy]

Disclaimer: the following is my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it.

Whenever I watch a video where someone tests cartridges, muzzleloaders, or bows, there is invariably a reference to "energy" or "foot pounds". I understand that it's impressive to some, but I am apparently in the minority who feel it is an almost worthless number that rarely- if ever- reflects the effectiveness of a cartridge.

Allow me to expand on this. The formula for determining the energy of a bullet is:
E = (M x V²) ÷ 450,435 : E = energy, M = mass (weight) of the object in grains, and V= velocity in feet-per-second (FPS).

Since velocity is squared, it has a great effect on the result. For example a factory Remington 22-250 load with 55 grain bullet at 3,680 FPS has over 1,650 foot pounds (lb/ft) of muzzle energy. A factory Remington 45-70 cartridge with a 405 grain bullet at 1,330 FPS has less energy at 1,590 lb/ft. So if we went solely by energy figures, a varmint cartridge has more "power" than a buffalo cartridge. Yet if I'm fishing in Alaska, I know which one I'll choose.

"Well that's just absurd!", someone says. "Obviously that isn't a fair comparison. What about if someone is testing 45 ACP? Isn't the load with more power going to be more effective than the one with less? Isn't it a useful tool for situations like that?"

Many moons ago, a guy had a jacket swager and made up some 45 Auto bullets with balsa wood cores. Velocities were upwards of 2,000 FPS, and with the weight of the bullets, that put the energy figures well over 500 lb/ft. Impressive, right? Welllll, penetration was almost nonexistent, and they were horridly inaccurate, so effectively useless for anything but the experiment itself.

"Okay, wiseass, that's an extreme situation with a radical projectile. What about the same weight and style bullets? The faster/ more powerful one is going to be better."

Ever see tests with PMC Bronze hollowpoints? Regularly outperformed by the same cartridge launching bullets of identical weight at lower speeds/power. And it's not just the PMCs. There are many inexpensive designs that are just bad at any speed or power level, while some bullets do well even at modest velocity/energy. Good designs don't require blistering speeds to perform reliably, and some bullets perform poorly when driven too fast.

"Yeah, but there are optimal weight charts for game animals based on the power of a cartridge. You're not unethical enough to tell me they're bogus!"

I think our forefathers would argue that their anemic (by today's standards) muzzleloaders shooting dead-soft lead spheres did just fine on game animals. Millions of deer, elk, and moose were killed with guns generating less energy at 50 yards than a 357 Mag at the muzzle, and not one of those optimal game weight charts would claim that little energy was acceptable on anything bigger than an anorexic whitetail. And of course millions of the largest land animals in North America were virtually wiped out with "wimpy" cartridges like the 45-70, 45-90, and 50-90 that were less powerful than the lowly 6.5mm Creedmoor! How many animals were killed with 25-20, 32-20, 38-40, 44-40, and other "underpowered" black powder cartridges?

So energy is not the be-all, end-all that some think it to be. Bullet diameter, sectional density, and construction matter more than velocity. Simply put; if a bullet does not reach the vitals and damage them sufficiently when it gets there, it is ineffective, regardless of how many foot-pounds it's packing.

Not to be contrary in any sense, but I just recently read an article that noted Eskimos have been known to kill polar bears with 22LR. It wasn't recommended, but it has been done. I'll try to dig that up.

I think it was provided as proof that penetration and shot placement are the most important factors in killing.

 

[blume357]

Y'all are speaking way over my head for sure.... my only comment is, regardless of the energy or foot-pounds or what ever of the bullet what really matters more is where it goes....

 

[Mobuck]

" Eskimos have been known to kill polar bears with 22LR."
Keep in mind that simply 'killing' an animal takes a distant second place to killing an animal ethically and quickly while facilitating recovery. "Native" hunters getting a single 22 rimfire bullet deep enough into a bear to achieve a blood trail might be all that's needed in an area of solid snow cover for miles. They might also run that bear down with dog teams or snow machines. Darned few 'modern' hunters have sufficient tracking skills to follow up an animal that doesn't fall within a few seconds.

 

[gunpoorboy]

Boooooooring.

 

[kmoore]

Well Mobuck beat me to part of my answer. Yes our grand parents were killing big game with cartridges far less of some today. They also mainly had iron sights. Unless we learn details of those hunts, I am guessing many were taken into possession after a short or even long trailing.
Back to energy ft lbs. I have always understood it as just a number that can show some differences, but is never the final word, maybe just a guide.
Here is an example of made up Ft. Lbs numbers just to ask two questions: I fire a bullet into an elk, the charts say it had 3,000ft lbs of energy at the distance of that elk. #1 the bullet passes through, how do we measure the real ft. lbs of energy the elk took, was it 1500 ft lbs ? who knows, does it even matter.. #2 The same distance, the bullet does not exit the elk, did the elk take all the 3,000 ft lbs of energy? In both cases the elk turned and dropped dead.
I once though up of a test: Make a target 1,000 lbs and put it on wheels. Make it so the bullet will be stopped in that target. If the bullet had more than 1,000 ft lbs of energy would it move the target backwards. If not how many ft lbs would it take?

 

[gunzo]

All are rulers, something to measure with or compare; pounds foot energy, TKOF, IPSC power factor. A guide line.

Extremely high B.C. bullets & modern superior bullet construction has changed the game. New ways to look at the big picture for sure.

 

[Mobuck]

You might say I'm a student of terminal ballistics--I've been studying bullet performance for 1/2 century. There are so many variables involved with shooting game that any statement can/will be refuted.
Simply using foot pounds of energy isn't sufficient to prove a bullet's capabilities. Bullet construction makes a HUGE difference and can 'bump up' a smaller caliber with limited 'on paper energy' to another level. I no longer give much credence to those 'on paper energy' figures while placing more importance on just how a bullet performs on game.
This bullet performance will be a factor in how kmoore's rolling target will be affected. A quicker expanding bullet the delivers it's energy in a quick wallop will create a different movement pattern than a slower expanding but deeper penetrating bullet that bores it's way through the medium.
I could go on and on but will spare all of you the boring commentary.

 

[GunnyGene]

You might say I'm a student of terminal ballistics--I've been studying bullet performance for 1/2 century. There are so many variables involved with shooting game that any statement can/will be refuted.
Simply using foot pounds of energy isn't sufficient to prove a bullet's capabilities. Bullet construction makes a HUGE difference and can 'bump up' a smaller caliber with limited 'on paper energy' to another level. I no longer give much credence to those 'on paper energy' figures while placing more importance on just how a bullet performs on game.
This bullet performance will be a factor in how kmoore's rolling target will be affected. A quicker expanding bullet the delivers it's energy in a quick wallop will create a different movement pattern than a slower expanding but deeper penetrating bullet that bores it's way through the medium.
I could go on and on but will spare all of you the boring commentary.

What's your opinion on solid copper fluted bullets (Lehigh Defense)? Is projectile spin a factor?

https://lehighdefense.com/

 

[Biggfoot44]

Kinetic Energy is :

Objective
Relatively simple for anyone to calculate
Been in use long enough , and broadly enough to compare lots of dispirate things over lots of years .
Simple enough to be used by lots of game departments to regulate what firearms may be used on what game .

The above explains the Why .

But meanwhile , KE by itself is pretty poor predictor of performance , for either hunting or self defense .

Further BUT , there is the extreme opposite of consensus of what reasonably consistent , and reasonably proportionate system of measurement to use instead of , or along side KE .

Everybody approaches backwards . They know what load/ cartridge they fancy , then design a comparison formula that shows it better than everything else .

Momentum is a semi popular one . but just like KE , the farther away from apples to apples , the funkier the results .


What strikes me as useful as any simple formula is the Late John Wooters's " L Factor .

Ft lb x bullet Diameter x Sectional Density = L. . Use the assumption that bullets intended to expand , will actually expand reasonably close to appropriate manner .

Does as well as any simple formula to give somewhat realistic comparison between small & fast vs medium & medium vs big & slow .

 

[Mobuck]

"What's your opinion on solid copper fluted bullets (Lehigh Defense)? Is projectile spin a factor?"
I'm not familiar with the performance of the twisty nose flute designs and at this time can't really comment. There's a lot of stuff going on with those 'copper fluted bullets' and some of the factors are rifling rate and muzzle velocity.
A couple weeks back we did some (very caveman ish) testing of the Norma MHP 9mm ammo. This is an expanding monolith with skived flutes design--VERY impressive from 3.2", 4.5", and 16" barrels. Only lost 1 petal from 10 bullets tested. Really wicked expansion with no appreciable loss of penetration. One caveat: water is not going to create the drag factor that ballistic gelatin does so penetration in BG will likely be less. I like this bullet for what it does-expand at any tested velocity, punch deep enough to hit vitals, reduce possibility of over penetration and/or ricochet.
Monolithic bullets have been on the rifle scene for a long time with somewhat varied results. Even more factors to consider with hunting rifle bullets due to the initial velocity vs long range impact velocity and size/build of the game animals. My feelings: Monolith bullets are exceptional for producing deep penetration but may come up lacking at longer ranges or lower muzzle velocities. Keep the velocity up and I feel better about their performance. Case in point: I use a 25/06 with Nosler E-Tip bullets when hunting cow elk. Now cow elk aren't the big shouldered testosterone laced animals that bulls often are so more of a heavy boned big framed deer. The 100-110 grain E-Tips have killed EVERY elk they've hit at ranges from 200-400 yards and 4 of 5 went down within a few feet. The key is velocity at point of impact-enough to open that bullet nose up enough to create adequate tissue damage. Punching holes through game animals w/o causing adequate internal damage makes guides very grumpy.

 

[GunnyGene]

"What's your opinion on solid copper fluted bullets (Lehigh Defense)? Is projectile spin a factor?"
I'm not familiar with the performance of the twisty nose flute designs and at this time can't really comment. There's a lot of stuff going on with those 'copper fluted bullets' and some of the factors are rifling rate and muzzle velocity.
A couple weeks back we did some (very caveman ish) testing of the Norma MHP 9mm ammo. This is an expanding monolith with skived flutes design--VERY impressive from 3.2", 4.5", and 16" barrels. Only lost 1 petal from 10 bullets tested. Really wicked expansion with no appreciable loss of penetration. One caveat: water is not going to create the drag factor that ballistic gelatin does so penetration in BG will likely be less. I like this bullet for what it does-expand at any tested velocity, punch deep enough to hit vitals, reduce possibility of over penetration and/or ricochet.
Monolithic bullets have been on the rifle scene for a long time with somewhat varied results. Even more factors to consider with hunting rifle bullets due to the initial velocity vs long range impact velocity and size/build of the game animals. My feelings: Monolith bullets are exceptional for producing deep penetration but may come up lacking at longer ranges or lower muzzle velocities. Keep the velocity up and I feel better about their performance. Case in point: I use a 25/06 with Nosler E-Tip bullets when hunting cow elk. Now cow elk aren't the big shouldered testosterone laced animals that bulls often are so more of a heavy boned big framed deer. The 100-110 grain E-Tips have killed EVERY elk they've hit at ranges from 200-400 yards and 4 of 5 went down within a few feet. The key is velocity at point of impact-enough to open that bullet nose up enough to create adequate tissue damage. Punching holes through game animals w/o causing adequate internal damage makes guides very grumpy.

Thanks. I've watched a couple videos of the Lehigh product (.45acp) just out of curiosity. Pretty impressive terminal performance. Also impressive price point (~$2/rnd). Underwood sells these in various calibers if you're interested in doing some experimenting with them.

Here's their .45acp collection.

https://www.underwoodammo.com/handgun-ammo?cartridge_uw=674,741

 

[Rick Courtright]

I once though up of a test: Make a target 1,000 lbs and put it on wheels. Make it so the bullet will be stopped in that target. If the bullet had more than 1,000 ft lbs of energy would it move the target backwards. If not how many ft lbs would it take?

Hi,

Aren't you describing a form of a ballistic pendulum, used before chronographs came on scene to measure velocities? i think one needs to know his way around a slide rule to work one...

Rick C

 

[Rick Courtright]

Wait, what?! You can buy bullets AND bourbon in the same store? Almost makes me wanna move to Mississippi.

Hi,

I dunno if the store's still there since the freeway bypass went in and then COVID hit, but the town of Mojave, CA--out in the desert near Edwards AFB--had a liquor store that listed liquor, cold beer, and ammo on the side of the building for years.

Rick C

 

[outlaw_dogboy]

" Eskimos have been known to kill polar bears with 22LR."
Keep in mind that simply 'killing' an animal takes a distant second place to killing an animal ethically and quickly while facilitating recovery. "Native" hunters getting a single 22 rimfire bullet deep enough into a bear to achieve a blood trail might be all that's needed in an area of solid snow cover for miles. They might also run that bear down with dog teams or snow machines. Darned few 'modern' hunters have sufficient tracking skills to follow up an animal that doesn't fall within a few seconds.

Don't disagree with you at all. But the discussion was not (I think) about ethics. It was about, essentially, efficacy. And what determines that.

 

[gramps]

I lived with the Inupiat’s along Alaska’s Northern coastline. They use smaller calibers because it damages less meat, and smaller holes in pelts. Jake told me how
They used pointy sticks to kill polar bear. At that range a .22 LR works good as does the 22/250 that they are fond of. Then we have the Alaskan guide with his puny 9 mm.
https://www.liveoutdoors.com/news/240665-alaskan-fishing-guide-kills-grizzly-with-9mm/#/slide/1

 

[caryc]

So the fishing guide got lucky. I value my life more than to try a stunt like that. I realize that the 9mm was all he had but I would not be in bear country with a 9mm as the only protection for my life. He made the choice to carry it.