Energy Comparison of 3 Excellent Hunting Cartridges
- Thread starter The Kurgan
- Start date
Indeed, energy doses not kill, putting holes in vital organs and letting the blood leak out doses.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
No, we're talking about energy and its relevance to killing game. Often very heavy for caliber bullets produce less energy than mid-weight bullets, but the heavy weights often produce a combination of a larger expanded frontal area with deeper penetration on large dense targets, as a result of their greater momentum. If hunting buffalo with the .30/06, a 240 gr Woodleigh @ 2300 proves superior to a 150 gr Sierra @ 2900, yet both produce 2800 fp of energy; but the energy figure alone fails to consider bullet construction, expanded frontal area, or penetration.
RememberTheSomme
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nova Scotia
All things equal(bullet diameter, sectional density, expanding characteristics), energy is a measurement for cmparison on a bullets ability to be driven deeper in a medium
Are we still talking about .300 Winchester Magnums, loaded with .308Winchester constructed bullets ,in the early/mid 1960s being driven too fast for their construction, resulting in grevious wounds, and not achieving the penetration potential possible with the big 30?
This is 2011. We now have a wide range of bullets constructed to perform at any terminal velocity, whether it be a .300 Savage or in a .300 RUM, and impart the desired expansion/penetration required for a given cartridge.
So to answer the question if you want to compare .30s or .277s or .284s against each other today, there will be a bullet suitable bullet avaliable as the terminal velocity increases to be controlled and impart increasing penetration and increased hydrostatic tissue damage and shock.
It's not 1965 with the same well shaped ,but poorly constructed bullets avaliable to handloaders to be fired in their .30s , from the .300 Savage to the .300Weatherby. While performing admirably in the .300 Savage at say 1ooyds, they produced large damage wound channels in a .300Weathrby and not guaranteeing penetration on large animals to the vitals based solely comparing the two against each other merely on energy delivered. The 30 Magnum however , even in the day's of being hamstrung by a poor selection of bullets, would deliver the .300Savages energy at 3 times the distance with the same resulting reliable penetration and reliable bullet performance.
So when I see a 7mm cartridge delivering a 160gr bullet with 2000ftlbs remaining at 500yds, and another delivering 2000ftilbs at 250yds, I will conclude and rightfully so, the former out performs the latter by 2 times the range. This conclusion is based on proper bullet selection will always be applied, and therefore become, shall we say a constant, ....with bullet energy being the only thing left really to talk about.
Are we still talking about .300 Winchester Magnums, loaded with .308Winchester constructed bullets ,in the early/mid 1960s being driven too fast for their construction, resulting in grevious wounds, and not achieving the penetration potential possible with the big 30?
This is 2011. We now have a wide range of bullets constructed to perform at any terminal velocity, whether it be a .300 Savage or in a .300 RUM, and impart the desired expansion/penetration required for a given cartridge.
So to answer the question if you want to compare .30s or .277s or .284s against each other today, there will be a bullet suitable bullet avaliable as the terminal velocity increases to be controlled and impart increasing penetration and increased hydrostatic tissue damage and shock.
It's not 1965 with the same well shaped ,but poorly constructed bullets avaliable to handloaders to be fired in their .30s , from the .300 Savage to the .300Weatherby. While performing admirably in the .300 Savage at say 1ooyds, they produced large damage wound channels in a .300Weathrby and not guaranteeing penetration on large animals to the vitals based solely comparing the two against each other merely on energy delivered. The 30 Magnum however , even in the day's of being hamstrung by a poor selection of bullets, would deliver the .300Savages energy at 3 times the distance with the same resulting reliable penetration and reliable bullet performance.
So when I see a 7mm cartridge delivering a 160gr bullet with 2000ftlbs remaining at 500yds, and another delivering 2000ftilbs at 250yds, I will conclude and rightfully so, the former out performs the latter by 2 times the range. This conclusion is based on proper bullet selection will always be applied, and therefore become, shall we say a constant, ....with bullet energy being the only thing left really to talk about.
The OP analyzed 2 rounds with close bullet weights and shapes. Which makes the energy relevant.
And you came up with what?
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I came up with the fact that energy alone is a poor measure of a bullet's potential on game. Sometime compare the terminal performance of a soft lead 150 gr bullet and a TSX of the same caliber and similar impact velocity; that should clear up the confusion.
- Location
- Steel Town and The Peg
Just a reminder that the cartridges compared are standard 173-180 soft points. Again, energy is relevant when the projectiles are comparable. I don't think a deer would know the difference at 300 metres.
