I know that there are many factors involved here like SD and velocity, but is there a min. energy figure guideline used to determine max effective range on big game?
Range Report ballpark min. energy # for terminal performance?
- Thread starter 264highlandhunter
- Start date
Re: ballpark min. energy # for terminal performance?
Different sources give different listing for the recommended energy on given animals.
For example, Lee recommends
1000-1500 for deer
1500-2000 for elk
2000-2500 for moose
over 4000 for bear
Make your choice, personaly I think those tables are mostly all wet, for example, I've shot a lot of each, I found that elk are much tougher then moose.
Different sources give different listing for the recommended energy on given animals.
For example, Lee recommends
1000-1500 for deer
1500-2000 for elk
2000-2500 for moose
over 4000 for bear
Make your choice, personaly I think those tables are mostly all wet, for example, I've shot a lot of each, I found that elk are much tougher then moose.
Re: ballpark min. energy # for terminal performance?
I agree with Kraig. I find elk a tougher animal. So long as you get a bullet into the vitals of a moose they generally don't go as far. Just don't hit the shoulder with a lighter round as they are big bones.
I agree with Kraig. I find elk a tougher animal. So long as you get a bullet into the vitals of a moose they generally don't go as far. Just don't hit the shoulder with a lighter round as they are big bones.
Re: ballpark min. energy # for terminal performance?
My Opinion is 1200 all all game.
Bears are a little different but then again your not going to take a long shot on one any how.
Shot placement is the key. You put in in the vitals they are done. ( you might have to track a little further. )
My Opinion is 1200 all all game.
Bears are a little different but then again your not going to take a long shot on one any how.
Shot placement is the key. You put in in the vitals they are done. ( you might have to track a little further. )
Re: ballpark min. energy # for terminal performance?
A) I know I have hit an elk when I cause that animal in the herd to walk faster than the others.
B) Michelle Simpson was taken out with 5 foot pounds of energy to the throat.
C) I have been killing raccoons with loads so quiet they sound like a BB gun. Here is a pic of a 50 cal wildcat I developed.
I have found that 50 foot pounds will take out a 20 pound raccoon in 2 seconds with a body shot from the side. Going through the ribs is easy.
But the same load is no good for a frontal shot. I need much more energy to go through the shoulder from the front.
Yet 80 foot pounds from a 22LR hollow point has no effect from the side. That takes 5 shots, and the wounded animal rarely holds still for it.
So the large bore 50 foot pounds is 5 times better than the 80 foot pounds small bore.
If it were linear, we would say that 50 foot pounds = 400 foot pounds.
I suspect it is not linear.
D) I am getting clean kills with 130 gr Ballistic Tip 270 1800 fps terminal = 1000 foot pounds on deer. I just have to hit them from the side and get the lungs.
What does it all mean?
Energy is a piss poor measure of stopping power.
A) I know I have hit an elk when I cause that animal in the herd to walk faster than the others.
B) Michelle Simpson was taken out with 5 foot pounds of energy to the throat.
C) I have been killing raccoons with loads so quiet they sound like a BB gun. Here is a pic of a 50 cal wildcat I developed.
I have found that 50 foot pounds will take out a 20 pound raccoon in 2 seconds with a body shot from the side. Going through the ribs is easy.
But the same load is no good for a frontal shot. I need much more energy to go through the shoulder from the front.
Yet 80 foot pounds from a 22LR hollow point has no effect from the side. That takes 5 shots, and the wounded animal rarely holds still for it.
So the large bore 50 foot pounds is 5 times better than the 80 foot pounds small bore.
If it were linear, we would say that 50 foot pounds = 400 foot pounds.
I suspect it is not linear.
D) I am getting clean kills with 130 gr Ballistic Tip 270 1800 fps terminal = 1000 foot pounds on deer. I just have to hit them from the side and get the lungs.
What does it all mean?
Energy is a piss poor measure of stopping power.
Re: ballpark min. energy # for terminal performance?
If I recall this correctly, 200 ft-lb is the US Military's estimate of the minimum effective terminal energy required for an effective combat firearm.
Personally, I think they're woefully underestimating the task; and that an effective combat firarm chambering is more like a .45ACP than a 9mm Parbellum, and more like a .30-'06 than a .223.
Greg
If I recall this correctly, 200 ft-lb is the US Military's estimate of the minimum effective terminal energy required for an effective combat firearm.
Personally, I think they're woefully underestimating the task; and that an effective combat firarm chambering is more like a .45ACP than a 9mm Parbellum, and more like a .30-'06 than a .223.
Greg
Re: ballpark min. energy # for terminal performance?
I've never seen a foot-pound kill an animal...the projectile going through a vital spot does that.
If energy is the only criterion used, a 22-250 would be better bear medicine than a 45-70. Obviously, this is untrue. Huge game has also been cleanly taken with pointy sticks (arrows) as well, and they don't pack near the punch of even the most anemic centerfire cartridges. A hundred years ago, calibers weaker than many of our concealed-carry cartridges were considered excellent deer medicine. Bear, bison, elk, moose, etc. by the millions have been killed with muzzleloaders firing dead soft lead balls packing three-digit foot-pound numbers.
Any caliber that will get a decent-diameter projectile to a vital (blood or central nervous system) area and damage or destroy it will kill a big game animal well. What this means is the bullet needs to expand consistently if it is a smaller caliber, or start out big if it is non-expanding, and it needs to hold together and drive straight once it has encountered tissue and bone.
And on the other end of the spectrum, some of the hot, high velocity cartridges which look great on paper at long range can tear up a bullet on a close shot that hits heavy bone. A 45-70 firing a 405 grain cast flat-point bullet at 1350 fps will punch through any joint on a big elk standing 50 yards from the muzzle and continue on to destroy whatever lies on the other side of the bone. At the same range, I've seen a 300 Ultra Mag firing a well-respected bullet cripple an elk and destroy a whole shoulder. A follow-up dropped the cow and the "necropsy" showed that she wouldn't have survived the first shot, but all that made it to the vitals was fragments of bullet, and she was moving away when my hunting partner popped her the second time.
In short, don't get too hung up on energy figures. A proper caliber, proper bullet, and proper shot placement will trump a shitpile of foot-pounds <span style="font-style: italic">every</span> time.
I've never seen a foot-pound kill an animal...the projectile going through a vital spot does that.
If energy is the only criterion used, a 22-250 would be better bear medicine than a 45-70. Obviously, this is untrue. Huge game has also been cleanly taken with pointy sticks (arrows) as well, and they don't pack near the punch of even the most anemic centerfire cartridges. A hundred years ago, calibers weaker than many of our concealed-carry cartridges were considered excellent deer medicine. Bear, bison, elk, moose, etc. by the millions have been killed with muzzleloaders firing dead soft lead balls packing three-digit foot-pound numbers.
Any caliber that will get a decent-diameter projectile to a vital (blood or central nervous system) area and damage or destroy it will kill a big game animal well. What this means is the bullet needs to expand consistently if it is a smaller caliber, or start out big if it is non-expanding, and it needs to hold together and drive straight once it has encountered tissue and bone.
And on the other end of the spectrum, some of the hot, high velocity cartridges which look great on paper at long range can tear up a bullet on a close shot that hits heavy bone. A 45-70 firing a 405 grain cast flat-point bullet at 1350 fps will punch through any joint on a big elk standing 50 yards from the muzzle and continue on to destroy whatever lies on the other side of the bone. At the same range, I've seen a 300 Ultra Mag firing a well-respected bullet cripple an elk and destroy a whole shoulder. A follow-up dropped the cow and the "necropsy" showed that she wouldn't have survived the first shot, but all that made it to the vitals was fragments of bullet, and she was moving away when my hunting partner popped her the second time.
In short, don't get too hung up on energy figures. A proper caliber, proper bullet, and proper shot placement will trump a shitpile of foot-pounds <span style="font-style: italic">every</span> time.
Similar threads
