Minimum amount of energy
- Thread starter Camper
- Start date
dificult to answear-1000 FT LBS has been used as a general benchmark-but that is obviously only one factor-shot placement is probably more important ie-a 22LR to the head is far more lethal and certainly more humane than a shot in the guts by a larger caliber.[note-I am not advocating the use of 22's ,merely making the point]
http://www.biggameinfo.com/
Go to ballistics calculator and input your rifle data, the last colum is the optimum game weight at given ranges.
I would say that deer is probably around 1000 ft lbs, elk I hear is 2000 ft lbs (tough animal), I would say moose is somewhere between 1500 - 2000 ft lbs depending on the particular animal.
Hope this is what your looking for?
Brambles
Go to ballistics calculator and input your rifle data, the last colum is the optimum game weight at given ranges.
I would say that deer is probably around 1000 ft lbs, elk I hear is 2000 ft lbs (tough animal), I would say moose is somewhere between 1500 - 2000 ft lbs depending on the particular animal.
Hope this is what your looking for?
Brambles
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Trying to determine a cartridge's suitability for game based on it's kinetic energy will just drive you nuts. A .45-70 is a common round for big bears, but it has the same muzzle energy as a .22-250, which is not normally considered adaquate for any big game - although it has been used as such. I recall once getting the advise that a cartridge of .25 caliber, producing a 1500 fp's of energy should be minimum for North American big game. I just forgot the whole silly idea and use a .375 for everthing.
death-junky
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Moose Jaw SK
1000 lbs for deer 1500 lbs for elk 2000 lbs for moose
talk to ya all later
Riley
talk to ya all later
Riley
The question should not be how much muzzle energy but rather how much is put into the animal. If the bullet exits the game then some of the energy is not beinr transfered to the game, this brings back the question of slower heavy bullets versus light fast bullets.
beretta boy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Orillia, Ontario
Think of the minimum for deer as a .243 with 100 gr. bullet - reliable on deer out to 300 yards ... similar energy levels at 200 and 300 yards might be a realistic guide. Similarly, energy like the 180 gr. .308 and .30-06 as minimums for moose might be an appropriate guide too. Yes, you can kill deer with a .22-250 at 400 yards, and lots of moose are taken with .30-30's - but be a good lad and use enough gun !
beretta boy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Orillia, Ontario
"Links" to "back yourself up" - how high-tech & yuppie.
What's wrong with solid, in the field experiance and a freezer full of each ???
What's wrong with solid, in the field experiance and a freezer full of each ???
In England and Wales 1740 ft lbs and a min calibre of .240 for deer but scotland can be .22 cebtre fire with a min bullet wt of 55 grains I think (roe only). All a bit daft really as I have taken big deer with 243 and litle ones with 6.5 up to 303. I'd go with th other guys 12-1500 ft lbs as a good place to start.
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
There will be no definitive answer. I have scratched my head over this ever since I started hunting. Started with a 303Brit - deer died on the spot, went to a 30-06- deer died but usually moved some distance. So is the lesser energy actually better???? All game shot had bullets that exited at full expansion. Big exit hole.
So I ask you this question. If you took a 45ACP or a 40S&W with FMJ bullets, put the HG on the rib cage, over the heart and lungs area, of any NA grass eater and pulled the trigger, would it create a fatal wound?
I hope you said yes. And it would. How much energy it that? Piss poor in anyones books BUT lethal.
We up the horsepower so that we get into that 'use enough gun' scenerio but how much is too much? How much is enough?
Personally, I prefer to match IMPACT VELOCITY to the game and bullet. The faster I go at impact, the 'tougher' the bullet to retain expansion and penetration. Afterall, a pencil hole through the animal doesn't do much, neither does a big shallow splat.
The slower the impact velocity, the more fragile the bullet.
So with common popular cals going from 6mm to 338, all I want is a bullet that is accurate to get to the boiler room and drive a large permanent wound channel through the important bits. I ensure that balance of expansion and penetration occurs by matching the impact velocity to the characteristics of the bullet.
If that is done, amount of KE (the calculated kind) is irrelavant. More does not necessarily kill any faster. I would love to know that my game fall dead on the spot so no tracking is needed. Except for a CNS hit, just doesn't happen.
Oh, I also used to think that more KE would drop game faster. My small deer was hit in the boiler room at 60ft with a 30-06. Bye bye lungs (jello) with a massive exit wound. It got right back up and stumbled another 25ft before collapsing. It still needed a final head shot at close range. The amount of energy that was delivered should have stopped it in its tracks. Should have stopped a very big moose. Apparently the deer had other plans.
My one and only bear covered close to 100yds without lungs. It was easy to track from the large clumps of lung and foam along the trail. Another deer wondered off close to 50yds on three legs, no heart and 1/3 of one lung left.
Tales from a recent moose hunt had a large bull hammered through the lungs at 50yds with a 300WM. Moose didn't feel like dying right away and needed a number of follow up shots. The end came with a shot in the head. Isn't a 300WM at 50yds enough gun for a moose? Yes, the first bullet exited with a sizeable hole.
Animals have a tenacity for life that exceeds the tools to end it. If an animal wants to run, it will do so even when fatally wounded. How much more dead can we make that animal then to remove it's ability to breathe and/or to circulate blood? I guess we could only take head or spine shots.
Hitting them with MORE gun will not change a thing. Instead, I suggest you use a med calibre (6.5 to 30), moderate case with recoil LOW enough to ensure accurate shooting. Load proper bullets of sufficient weight (usually med to heavy weights in each calibre). At normal hunting range and in the right place, everything will fall....eventually.
Jerry
So I ask you this question. If you took a 45ACP or a 40S&W with FMJ bullets, put the HG on the rib cage, over the heart and lungs area, of any NA grass eater and pulled the trigger, would it create a fatal wound?
I hope you said yes. And it would. How much energy it that? Piss poor in anyones books BUT lethal.
We up the horsepower so that we get into that 'use enough gun' scenerio but how much is too much? How much is enough?
Personally, I prefer to match IMPACT VELOCITY to the game and bullet. The faster I go at impact, the 'tougher' the bullet to retain expansion and penetration. Afterall, a pencil hole through the animal doesn't do much, neither does a big shallow splat.
The slower the impact velocity, the more fragile the bullet.
So with common popular cals going from 6mm to 338, all I want is a bullet that is accurate to get to the boiler room and drive a large permanent wound channel through the important bits. I ensure that balance of expansion and penetration occurs by matching the impact velocity to the characteristics of the bullet.
If that is done, amount of KE (the calculated kind) is irrelavant. More does not necessarily kill any faster. I would love to know that my game fall dead on the spot so no tracking is needed. Except for a CNS hit, just doesn't happen.
Oh, I also used to think that more KE would drop game faster. My small deer was hit in the boiler room at 60ft with a 30-06. Bye bye lungs (jello) with a massive exit wound. It got right back up and stumbled another 25ft before collapsing. It still needed a final head shot at close range. The amount of energy that was delivered should have stopped it in its tracks. Should have stopped a very big moose. Apparently the deer had other plans.
My one and only bear covered close to 100yds without lungs. It was easy to track from the large clumps of lung and foam along the trail. Another deer wondered off close to 50yds on three legs, no heart and 1/3 of one lung left.
Tales from a recent moose hunt had a large bull hammered through the lungs at 50yds with a 300WM. Moose didn't feel like dying right away and needed a number of follow up shots. The end came with a shot in the head. Isn't a 300WM at 50yds enough gun for a moose? Yes, the first bullet exited with a sizeable hole.
Animals have a tenacity for life that exceeds the tools to end it. If an animal wants to run, it will do so even when fatally wounded. How much more dead can we make that animal then to remove it's ability to breathe and/or to circulate blood? I guess we could only take head or spine shots.
Hitting them with MORE gun will not change a thing. Instead, I suggest you use a med calibre (6.5 to 30), moderate case with recoil LOW enough to ensure accurate shooting. Load proper bullets of sufficient weight (usually med to heavy weights in each calibre). At normal hunting range and in the right place, everything will fall....eventually.
Jerry
Republic of Alberta
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- ,location, location
Energy dos'nt mean squat. How much energy does an arrow from a bow have? Not much but it kills. The most important thing is not energy but the ablity to put the projecile to the far side of the animal. A bow works because it has a "bullet'' that matches it's energy, one that can slice it's way through to the far side of an amimal. Choosing the correct projectile is much more important (within reason) than worring about energy. Pick one fired a a speed that puts the bullet to the far side of the animal, while doing the maximum amount of damage. Learning about types of bullets, and how they react at different velocitys will net you much more usefull information than worring about energy.
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
Camper, reread the above, that is not what we (some anyways) are saying at all. Ft-lbs is not a valid measure of lethality. Bullets going through the boiler room making a big mess is.
The most useable case size is the 308 family (don't get me wrong, lots of deer have been killed cleanly by the 250 savage but...let's use enough gun :lol: ). The 260 (120 to 140gr), 7-08 (140 to 162gr), and 308 (150 to 180gr) will put down any grass eater on this continent with ease inside of 350yds. We shoot larger cartridges for a variety of reasons but these larger cartridges do not necessarily kill any better or faster.
Certainly, no one has been able to show definitive evidence to that point. There isn't a cartridge or cal (at least one not mounted on a tracked vehicle) that will drop an animal where it is shot every single time. Not even the African cannons when a boiler room shot is taken. NOTHING...
Simply match the wonderful range of bullets to the task and feel secure that if you do your part, the game will be harvested. Just remember that no heart and/or no lungs is the goal. Taking off the back leg usually doesn't to a hell of a lot.
If you are still hung up on the ft lbs thing, consider this. The Buffalo were pretty much wiped out by hunters using soft cast bullets (400 to 500gr) launched at slow velocities (a screaming 1200fps, most only going 1100fps). These were used effectively out past 500yds. There was little issue with penetration or lethality. Run the numbers - not impressive. Slug goes almost lengthwise through a buffalo - very impressive.
A 220 swift has more paper energy at the muzzle then the above BP cartridge. Which would you rather have when hunting a 1000lbs grumpy thick skinned critter?
I'll take big hole through critter everytime.
Jerry
The most useable case size is the 308 family (don't get me wrong, lots of deer have been killed cleanly by the 250 savage but...let's use enough gun :lol: ). The 260 (120 to 140gr), 7-08 (140 to 162gr), and 308 (150 to 180gr) will put down any grass eater on this continent with ease inside of 350yds. We shoot larger cartridges for a variety of reasons but these larger cartridges do not necessarily kill any better or faster.
Certainly, no one has been able to show definitive evidence to that point. There isn't a cartridge or cal (at least one not mounted on a tracked vehicle) that will drop an animal where it is shot every single time. Not even the African cannons when a boiler room shot is taken. NOTHING...
Simply match the wonderful range of bullets to the task and feel secure that if you do your part, the game will be harvested. Just remember that no heart and/or no lungs is the goal. Taking off the back leg usually doesn't to a hell of a lot.
If you are still hung up on the ft lbs thing, consider this. The Buffalo were pretty much wiped out by hunters using soft cast bullets (400 to 500gr) launched at slow velocities (a screaming 1200fps, most only going 1100fps). These were used effectively out past 500yds. There was little issue with penetration or lethality. Run the numbers - not impressive. Slug goes almost lengthwise through a buffalo - very impressive.
A 220 swift has more paper energy at the muzzle then the above BP cartridge. Which would you rather have when hunting a 1000lbs grumpy thick skinned critter?
I'll take big hole through critter everytime.
Jerry
beretta boy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Orillia, Ontario
Camper:
You're on the right track now.
There is no solution to the question/debate, but use "enough gun" ( and that
doesn't neccessarily mean "big" or "too Much" gun" ) to get the job done efficiently and humanely.
You're on the right track now.
There is no solution to the question/debate, but use "enough gun" ( and that
doesn't neccessarily mean "big" or "too Much" gun" ) to get the job done efficiently and humanely.
- Location
- The Conservative part of Ontario
The more you hunt the more you will come to realize that those energy levels are just a guide. A good shot, who happens also to be a good hunter, can take game with much much less energy.
Take the old 44-40 for example. A short range number, that is clearly out matched by even the 30-30. Yet it kills very, very well within it's limited range, and has killed deer in very large numbers. It has also taken many a black bear. Many moose, and the occasional grizzly to be sure, have also fallen to the old black powder pistol like round, but I doub't you'd find anyone recommending the practice today.
Muzzle energy? Maybe 600 lbs, in it's standard load.
Take the old 44-40 for example. A short range number, that is clearly out matched by even the 30-30. Yet it kills very, very well within it's limited range, and has killed deer in very large numbers. It has also taken many a black bear. Many moose, and the occasional grizzly to be sure, have also fallen to the old black powder pistol like round, but I doub't you'd find anyone recommending the practice today.
Muzzle energy? Maybe 600 lbs, in it's standard load.
I think some of those numbers are high - chuck hawkes said 900 for deer and 1500 for moose as a minimum energy to hunt them 'ethically' so to speak - enough horsepower to get the job done and then some for saftey. I don't think it'd be much more than that.
And has been said - at BEST it's a rough indication. Ft Lbs of energy doesn't describe killing power adequately.
And has been said - at BEST it's a rough indication. Ft Lbs of energy doesn't describe killing power adequately.
1899 said:
Right on.
Kinetic energy is a pisspoor way to compare killing power of cartridges -- it overstates the importance of velocity.
Momentum would be alot more sensible formula to use, although it would be good to also include the (expanded) frontal area of the bullet.
