Big Game Cartridge Criterea

[Boomer]

Many years ago, it was put to me in a letter from Bob Brister at Field and Stream Magazine, that a big game cartridge should be able to put 1500 foot-pounds of energy on the target - regardless of range. I suppose anyone could pick an arbitrary number, but at the time this seemed reasonable advise, and today it still does. He went on to opine that a .25-06 was a great cartridge, but that's another story. If we examine this against some of our more popular hunting cartridges, it becomes apparent that there is another reason to limit the range we might shoot game from.

A 100 gr 6mm bullet when launched at 2900 crosses below 1500 FP's at 118 yards - yet this cartridge shoots flat enough to hit well beyond 300.

A 120 gr. .257" bullet at 2900 drops below 1500 FP's at 218 yards.

A 140 gr. 6.5mm bullet at 2700 drops below 1500 FP's at 258 yards

A 150 gr .277" bullet at 2800 drops below 1500 FP's at 297 yards

A 160 gr 7mm bullet at 2900 drops below 1500 FP's at 440 yards

A 180 gr .308 bullet at 2800 drops below 1500 FP's at 460 yards.

While a bullet doesn't suddenly stop working at any given velocity, this is an interesting guideline to follow when we know our shot could fall within a given range.

 

[BIGREDD]

Great point Boomer.
Many rifle bullets even premiums are not designed to expand well below 1500fps. If you are outside of the working range of the bullet you are not going to deliver adequate energy to do the job.

 

[iggy]

good info Boomer, thanks
now where would I get this info on say a 30.06 180 grain or 30.30 150 grain.

 

[todbartell]

Fp's means foot pounds, not FEET PER SECOND, for the record


​

 

[beretta boy]

IMHO - the key word is "arbitrary".

1500 ft/lbs may be a relatively valid benchmark energy for elk/moose & similar "big" game, but don't tell all those deer that died out beyond 60 yards from a 170gr. .30-.30. and, gee, it doesn't seem quite right that the .243 with 100 grainers is only good on deer or antelope at something like
125 yards max. Lots would disagree (and probably have) with Mr. Brister.
I'm sure proponents of the .250-3000/ .250 Savage and .257 Roberts would take umbrage in hearing their rifles are only "good" to go on big game at something less than 100 yards. Gotta believe ol' Jack O' or Larry Kolar would be on Mr. Brister like a duck on a June Bug for a statement like that.

 

[shepodyguide]

Foot-pounds are just a mathematical expression of kinetic energy, and cannot necessary be equated with killing effectiveness or shocking power. A potentially useful piece of information, just like taylor knock out, etc. A 22-250 has pretty impressive Ft.-pds numbers at short range but is marginal as a big game killer. A .44 rem mag rifle has marginal ft-pds. numbers at all ranges, but is a very effective big game stopper at short to mid range with well-constructed bullets.

I personally put very little stock in ft-pds numbers and prefer sectional density and bullet construction compared with velocity at a given range on a given target, as a rough guide as to what a bullet-caliber combo might do. Just my personal preference. But this method isn't foolproof either because I am not taking all intangibles into account either.

I am NOT saying foot-pounds of energy are not useful as a tool. However the differences in effective killing ranges are not an accurate guide because they can't take into account all the intangibles.

Just my .02

 

[Boomer]

While I agree that the number 1500 appears arbitrary, I think it provides a useful gauge to determine when a bullet cannot be counted on, under all circumstances, to inflict enough damage to a big game animal to result in a humane death - regardless of caliber. I think that if a bullet is properly constructed, and has the velocity to produce 1500 foot pounds of energy, then under any circumstances I can imagine - that bullet will penetrate well enough to disrupt the blood flow to the brain of any North American ungulate, and result in a humane death.

Now, I don't like the .243 for big game, because to me it is not so much different than a .22-250, and the 25's with 117 and 120 gr bullets do much better. There are those who think the .22-250 is a fine deer cartridge, but here's the problem - both of these cartridges, the .22-250 and the .243, produce 1500 FP out to 100 and some yards, but they are so accurate and so flat shooting it is only natural that longer shots will be made with them, and at long range they become questionable stoppers. My personal view is that big game cartridges start with the 6.5's, and IMHO, range should not be determined by flatness of trajectory, but rather should be determined by the horsepower that can be put on the target at a given range. While hitting the target is important, hitting alone isn't enough. The bullet needs to do its job when it gets there.

 

[woodchopper]

Lost of good indicators for bullet preformance,


but no absolute way of measuring potential preformance, too many variables.



I too dislike the .243 but love my 25-06 for deer, and use something bigger again for moose 7mm or 30cal.

but the .243 will work just fine on deer within limitations, so will a 30-30 also within limitations. And here is the key "within limitations"

So shoot what you want but learn what the limitations are

 

[aulrich]

1500 is the highest number I have heard for deer, I have mostly read 1000 or 1300.

Another rule of thumb was 1000 ft/lbs and 2000 fps the 2000 fps is to make sure a normal cup and core bullet expands. Though it does not fit when it comes to bigbores or pistols.

But these rules of thumb also get us into trouble if memory serves a 223 and 30-30 hit with about the same amount of energy @ 100 yards but I'd take a 30-30 anyday instead of a 223.

 

[stubblejumper]

Of course you must realize that the distances shown only apply for bullets with a specific ballistic co-efficient.Bullets with a higher BC with maintain their energy at longer distances,and those with a lower BC shed energy more quickly.The differences can be quite significant as distances approach 300 yards and farther.

 

[Boomer]

Of course you must realize that the distances shown only apply for bullets with a specific ballistic co-efficient.Bullets with a higher BC with maintain their energy at longer distances,and those with a lower BC shed energy more quickly.The differences can be quite significant as distances approach 300 yards and farther.

Certainly - the bullets I chose were specifically Hornady flat base spitzers, and Nosler Partitions, and I just pulled the numbers off my ballistics program which I set for 0' elevation, 32 degrees C, 85% humidity, and the muzzle velocities were arbitrary since many cartridges within a caliber are similar.


Aurlich -
Sure a .224" bullet can make 1500 at close range if it's going fast enough, and lots of guys take deer with .223's and .22-250's. Last year a guy here decked a moose with one shot using a Remington 55 gr. CL loaded to .223 velocity in his .22-250 (I know because I loaded his ammo - and that's how he wanted it). I don't like .224's or 6mm's for big game because they shoot further than they kill, as I said above. Is 1500 FP's a realistic number to determine maximum range of a cartridge for North American Big Game? I think so because it applies to all big game, and lots of guys hunt bear, moose, and elk with their deer rifles. If you don't like 1500, pick your own number, it doesn't matter - as long as the small bore hunter recognizes that shooting out to the maximum range of his rifle with a light bullet that might not penetrate is a poor practice.

I question why a hunter would want to shoot a big animal with a small bore rifle; perhaps it's economics, and he wants one rifle that will do everything well, and that he can tolerate shooting. Perhaps it's just the rifle he likes best. Perhaps the fast light bullets have given him lightning fast kills, and he simply doesn't believe that small bullets can fail. Bullet failure is not limited to small bores. I have seen small bore bullets fail on small game, and I have seen .30 caliber bullets fail on large game, and I have heard about bullets of .375" and larger fail on game for a number of reasons, so it is important that the correct bullet is chosen for the job, and to me using a small bore (.224 or 6mm) for big game does not fill that requirement. As for me, I want a bullet that can: buck the wind, expand as designed, leave an exit wound, and provide a level of accuracy which is acceptable within the range I intend to use it.

 

[aulrich]

Bommer I am with you 1500 is a reasonable number for all north american big game (though I was going after costal grizzly I'd want bigger)

I don't like .224's or 6mm's for big game because they shoot further than they kill

I love that line it completely describes it and sort of point to the homework a person needs to do when they ask the question I want to shoot X at 500 + yards. What ever the select must reach out there with enough energy to do the job.

Though that only the first step the next would be proper bullet selection then lots of practice

 

[Republic of Alberta]

Foot pounds and other "energy" numbers are prety much useless when it comes to killing effectiveness.

The only one I belive works is the Taytor Knock OUT but only when applied to what it was intended for, MISSED BRAIN SHOTS ON ELEPHANT.
The brain area (and to a lesser extent the spine) are the only organs that consistanly respond to "shock"


When it comes to body shots on game the only way to kill efectively is to have the bullet make it to the far side of the animal while creating some damage. The penetration and damage created cannot be linked to Foot Punds of energy. These both are a function of bullet performance. Bullet performance is a function of bullet construction, velocity on impact and the "hardness" of the target.

Because there are so many variables between bullet construction, velocity on impact and "hardness" of the target quaintifying killing power becomes as hard as capturing a fart in the wind.

 

[Andy]

Some people just will not rest until they have a foolproof formula for "enough gun", and thus will be lulled into thinking that they are guaranteed meat on the table. Once their gun is in the "Hammer of Thor" category, it's elementary - right?

Ever wonder why no-one has ever settled on the authoritative formula? Too many permutations. Some bullets could penetrate completely with 500 FP and others would not at 1500 FP. Bullet construction, shape, weight, distance, placement, etc.

Does a bow deliver 1500 FP at 30 yds? No, and it delivers very little shock, but it cuts a large wound channel and kills large animals.

Now an arrow is not a bullet, but both cause blood loss and that is what kills. Punch a hole through major blood vessels and the animal will die. Take a suitable bullet that will penetrate, enough energy to penetrate and correct location and the job will get done. A 500 gr 45 cal at 750 fps and a 50 gr 22 cal at 2500 fps can both be effective killers of large game, the former of bison at 1000 yds in days past, the latter every hunting season against "expert advice". Neither come close to 1500 FP (both are about the same at ~650 FP).

There is no formula.

 

[Boomer]

Some people just will not rest until they have a foolproof formula for "enough gun", and thus will be lulled into thinking that they are guaranteed meat on the table. Once their gun is in the "Hammer of Thor" category, it's elementary - right?

Ever wonder why no-one has ever settled on the authoritative formula? Too many permutations. Some bullets could penetrate completely with 500 FP and others would not at 1500 FP. Bullet construction, shape, weight, distance, placement, etc.

Does a bow deliver 1500 FP at 30 yds? No, and it delivers very little shock, but it cuts a large wound channel and kills large animals.

Now an arrow is not a bullet, but both cause blood loss and that is what kills. Punch a hole through major blood vessels and the animal will die. Take a suitable bullet that will penetrate, enough energy to penetrate and correct location and the job will get done. A 500 gr 45 cal at 750 fps and a 50 gr 22 cal at 2500 fps can both be effective killers of large game, the former of bison at 1000 yds in days past, the latter every hunting season against "expert advice". Neither come close to 1500 FP (both are about the same at ~650 FP).

There is no formula.

Let me start by saying that no buffalo was ever killed at anything like 1000 yards by the old time buffalo hunters - not even by accident. These men were in the business of making money, and shooting from such a distance would be of no benefit to them what so ever. In a day when normal wages were a dollar a day, their rifles (Sharps, Creedmores, Ballards, etc) cost over $200.00 each. Ammunition was nearly a dollar a round. They would stalk close to a heard, and with several rifles being passed to them in turn, shot until nothing was left alive, and they made alot of money. Buffalo don't panic and bolt at the sound of gun fire, and these hunters were careful not to drop an animal in it's tracks . . . rather the animal would slowly sicken, and by the time it dropped the entire herd was often dead. This had nothing to do with sport, it was a dirty bloody business - the purpose of which was to deprive the Plains Indians of the ability to provide for themselves.

Now with that out of the way, let me say that I agree with what you say pertaining to arrows taking game. An arrow kills through blood loss, and is most effective in one of two ways - first is if he arrow passes directly through the target, as with a bullet two holes let blood out and and cold air in resulting in the onset of shock, and death follows quickly. The second most effective way for an arrow to kill is if it leaves a length of the shaft protruding from the animal, and as the animal runs the shaft is pushed back and forth by vegetation and branches with the end result being that the internal organs of the animal are cut to ribbons. Again, a quick and humane death is the result of a very large wound cavity.

The purpose of attempting to put a minimum criteria on a hunting bullet, is to ensure that the bullet fully expands, and that there is enough residual velocity to ensure full penetration AT THE POINT OF IMPACT. Fully expanded the bullet creates the largest possible wound cavity, which quickly prevents oxygenated blood from reaching the brain - death results quickly. If the bullet exits the off side of the target, blood loss is more rapid, and the onset of shock is is hastened. In North America we are far too impressed by muzzle velocity, and the idea has permeated throughout the hunting community that if a bullet leaves the muzzle at 4000 FPS, everything in it's path is killed as if by the hand of God - regardless of range. This assumption is false!

 

[Boomer]

Foot pounds and other "energy" numbers are prety much useless when it comes to killing effectiveness.

The only one I belive works is the Taytor Knock OUT but only when applied to what it was intended for, MISSED BRAIN SHOTS ON ELEPHANT.
The brain area (and to a lesser extent the spine) are the only organs that consistanly respond to "shock"


When it comes to body shots on game the only way to kill efectively is to have the bullet make it to the far side of the animal while creating some damage. The penetration and damage created cannot be linked to Foot Punds of energy. These both are a function of bullet performance. Bullet performance is a function of bullet construction, velocity on impact and the "hardness" of the target.

Because there are so many variables between bullet construction, velocity on impact and "hardness" of the target quaintifying killing power becomes as hard as capturing a fart in the wind.

Then you must also agree that the small bore caliber rifles - which in the context of this discussion are the .224's and 6mm's - cannot meet those requirements at the long ranges they are capable of reaching. That is all I want the small bore big game hunters to realize - those rifles shoot further than they kill.

 

[Eagleye]

All rifles "shoot further than they kill" The only difference is how far do they kill effectively. I'm here to tell you that in the hands of a skilled rifleman, a 243 or a 6mm Remington are deadly deer medicine out to a bit over 300 yards, and energy be darned. Other important criteria of course, are a decent bullet and good shot placement, along with avoiding "iffy" presentations. The 270/130 Partition will drop a deer with a well placed shot out to 500 or so without any problems. As I see it, deer and other big game have not yet advanced in intelligence enough to be able to calculate how much energy is retained by the bullet that strikes them, and thus refuse to die because the required energy was lacking. If you were to present those 1500 ft/lb figures to hunters of yesteryear who filled their larders with 25-35's, 25-20's, 32-40's and 44-40's etc, etc., they would laugh you out of the country. Don't get me wrong. It's always comforting to have a bit of "extra" oomph when chasing a Moose or Elk, but it does not take a cannon to lay them on the ground. My apologies to those who, due to hearsay, bought 338/378 Weatherbys, 338 Ultramags, and other shoulder howitzers to hunt the large Cervids. If that's what floats your boat, more power to you! Just don't fix a steely glare on me and expect me to believe I will not be successful unless I have "X" amount of energy at the target. I have shot far too much game to subscribe to such nonsense. Regards, Eagleye.

 

[Foxer]

You can make this stuff very complex. And as mentioned, there is no such thing as a formula that can tell you exactly how effective a bullet will be on an animal.

Nor can you simply take 'energy' without looking at how the bullet will deform to 'deliver' that energy inside an animal.

Ft/lbs is an Adequate 'estimation' or benchmark for the purposes of COMPARING cartridges in a general sense, especially the smaller bore cartridges. The medium and larger bore cartridges are probably better compared with 'momentum' calculations. This is because they don't need to do as much 'work' agressively displacing tissue in order to create their wound channel, they just have to keep moving.

For the small to medium sized calibres (up to around 35 cal lets say) ftlbs is not a bad way to look at if you have APPROXIMATELY enough gun - i've always heard 900 ftlbs for deer, 1500 for moose, 2000 for griz.

However - that just gives you a rough idea. Along with that you have to consider the bullet and what it's designed to do.

And about all it's usefull for is helping you be aware when you MAY be getting into a slightly marginal situation, where it's better to really pick the sweet shots like broadside and avoid more 'risky' shots.

It's all good to know - and it's good information to be aware of. As LONG as you remember it is ONE peice of a much larger puzzle, and it's an INDICATOR, not an absolute.

 

[Boomer]

Rather than attempting to rekindle the old "what's enough gun argument" the point I am trying to get across is what is the the appropriate maximum range for any given cartridge in the field to ensure that a big game animal is harvested humanely. When hunting you are not shooting at a known distance, and once the range goes much beyond 300 just hitting becomes a problem, and even if the rifleman does everything else right, the miscalculation of range by as little as 10% can drop him right off target, or worse result in a wound. Now some guys think that's OK, because if they can get lead into him with that first shot, he can be killed with subsequent shots. That doesn't work for me. A .270 is an effective big game cartridge, suitable for taking big game well beyond the average rifleman's ability, the small bores are not. 6mm bullets can do very well shooting in 1000 yard matches, and for a while at least a 6mm held at least one or more of the 1000 yard records. But in the game field, where there are no range markers, no flags to judge the wind, and the rifle in question weighs closer to 6 pounds than it does to 60, larger calibers with heavier bullets are easier to hit with, and more apt to produce the desired results when they do.

You might not agree with 1500 FP's as being the minimal criteria for a big game bullet, if not, then pick your own. Perhaps 2000 FPS makes you feel better, or A TKO value of 10.0. There will always be people who claim good results below what ever criteria you choose to follow, this does not discredit the criteria, because you know that under some conditions they will run into trouble. If you cannot shoot at a big game animal from any angle, within the range of your firearm and your ability to use it, with a reasonable expectation of a one shot kill, I submit you are inappropriately armed. I want to see the .224" or 6mm bullet that will kill a moose quartering towards the hunter at 300 yards with one body shot. A 140 gr 6.5 bullet at 2700 FPS will do it.

 

[Republic of Alberta]

Then you must also agree that the small bore caliber rifles - which in the context of this discussion are the .224's and 6mm's - cannot meet those requirements at the long ranges they are capable of reaching. That is all I want the small bore big game hunters to realize - those rifles shoot further than they kill.

I am not sure, as I have never shot at game with a 22 or 24 caliber rifle, epecaly a long ranges.

I am certan that a bullet, even if it is small, will inflict major damage if it impacts at the velocity it was designed for on a target it was designed for.

A 100g .243" interlock is still going 2200-2300Fps at 300yards. I have never tested this bullet but I am guessing that it will still open up well and go the the far side at this velocity.
If you feel the wound channel is not large enough due to the lower velocity go with the 95g SST. It is also travleing in the 2200-2300Fps at 300yards and 2000fps at 400 yards but the SST was desined to open up well at longer range where velocity drops. The wound cannel would certanly increase, penetration may suffer but at 2300fps there probably will still be enough to go right through. At 2000fps (400yards) this bullet will still open up. I know that the normal threshold for expansion for the average cup and core bullet is around 2000fps, lower for the Balistic tip and SST. I am using logic and common sense and knowlage to pick a correct bullt for the application, the next step it to test it, if the test goes well you have a 300 and possibly 400yard bullet.

This is what it comes down to, being informed on how bullets preform at different velocitys and what bullets are on the market. Then it is up to you to test and choose the correct bullet for the application.

Lots of people look at the number and name on the cartrige case and jump to conclusions about that round. Then simply state that it is not good at somthing. These are blanket statements and hold no water for me. There are plenty of varibles out there and untill someone test it and proves something we all sit around and argue about what might happen, then agian sitting around agruing is fun and what these froums are all about.