Effective Game Killing

I'm on the "minimum velocity to make the bullet expand" wagon. I don't think the minimum ft lbs guys are wrong either though because their velocity will always be at a level where the bullet will expand anyways.

It was an interesting article. I don't have any areas to hunt where the vegetation is so thick that if an animal ran off that it would be super hard to find so I don't worry about DRT so much either.

I read the two articles. IMO they are unnecessarily complex (low signal-to-noise ratio). The gist seems to be:

• energy transfer correlates to bullet expansion which correlates to velocity and bullet construction
• bullets that expand too quickly create superficial (or non-penetrating) wounds that don't do enough damage to vital tissues to ensure quick/immediate kills (they probably hurt like a biotch, though)
• bullets that don't expand don't create enough tissue damage to ensure quick/immediate kills, but they do kill... eventually
• full penetration is not critical to quick kills but does provide a better blood trail
• bullet placement is key and supersedes everything else (duh!)
• what you want is a bullet that penetrates enough and expands enough to do enough tissue damage, and you want to put that bullet in the right place (forward part of the chest to damage lungs, arteries, heart... or the nerve complex that is located between the shoulder blades but below the spine)

In short, use enough gun with a bullet suitable for the game and put that bullet into the heart/lungs area and you're good to go.

memtb said:

I can't say that I'm a "heavy for caliber" hunter. But, I'm darn certain that I'm "not" a "light for caliber" hunter…..even with monos! That's been my philosophy since the '60's.

And before someone comments about the year ……that's the 1960's! memtb

Click to expand...

MEM, YOU are one old buck. Same here.

ObiJohn said:

I read the two articles. IMO they are unnecessarily complex (low signal-to-noise ratio). The gist seems to be:

• energy transfer correlates to bullet expansion which correlates to velocity and bullet construction
• bullets that expand too quickly create superficial (or non-penetrating) wounds that don't do enough damage to vital tissues to ensure quick/immediate kills (they probably hurt like a biotch, though)
• bullets that don't expand don't create enough tissue damage to ensure quick/immediate kills, but they do kill... eventually
• full penetration is not critical to quick kills but does provide a better blood trail
• bullet placement is key and supersedes everything else (duh!)
• what you want is a bullet that penetrates enough and expands enough to do enough tissue damage, and you want to put that bullet in the right place (forward part of the chest to damage lungs, arteries, heart... or the nerve complex that is located between the shoulder blades but below the spine)

In short, use enough gun with a bullet suitable for the game and put that bullet into the heart/lungs area and you're good to go.

Click to expand...

Additionally, because bullet construction influences expansion/energy transfer at specific velocities, what works better at long range is too expansive at short range, and vice versa. There are compromise bullets, e.g., the Nosler Partition that are designed to expand rapidly but keep enough of a base to ensure penetration... the expansion works at longer ranges, the penetration works at short range. There are extremes... guys using varmint bullets in fast cartridges like the .22-250 to shoot deer in the lungs within a couple hundred yards but take a rear quartering shot, or guys using solids in .375 H&H to hunt light plains game in Africa... but a good hunting bullet should work across the expected hunting ranges.

Again, use enough gun with a bullet suitable for the game and the range, and put that bullet into the heart/lungs area and you're good to go.

HARPERC said:

Any idea what impact velocity was? Goes to question of KE,

Click to expand...

The question of kinetic energy is a question of physics. What effect it has on a target at impact is anybody's guess based on innumerable variables.

MagnumManiac said:

@dfanonymous
Why was HORSEPOWER ever invented as a measure of engine power?

Cheers.

Click to expand...

Elected. The horses had a bigger turnout.

1raggedhole said:

The question of kinetic energy is a question of physics. What effect it has on a target at impact is anybody's guess based on innumerable variables.

Click to expand...

Yep!

FEENIX said:

I know this can be controversial, esp. to the naysayers, because some do not believe in (kinetic) energy transfer and shock, but that's OK. These articles are for open-minded folks willing and able to learn and add to their knowledge base. IMHO, Nathan Foster of https://www.ballisticstudies.com/ effectively captured the interrelationships of:

- How bullets kill
- Mechanism > kinetic energy transfer (Newton's Law of Physics)
- Fast killing
- Hydrostatic/hydraulic shock
- Wound factors
- Bullet weight, diameter, construction
- Shot placement

Part 1, https://www.norma-ammunition.com/en...ted-hunting/ammunition/effective-game-killing

Part 2, https://www.norma-ammunition.com/en...ting/ammunition/effective-game-killing-part-2

Click to expand...

Great read, Ed. Thanks for the share!

1raggedhole said:

The question of kinetic energy is a question of physics. What effect it has on a target at impact is anybody's guess based on innumerable variables.

Click to expand...

Yes! Its why many of us don't place much emphasis on KE. As long as transfer can't be readily quantified energy isn't anyplace close to top of my list regarding lethality.

A .45 caliber bullet, kills quite well with @FEENIX 1800ish FPS calculation. Is where I was going with the information.

Man we like to complicate things. Put a good quality cup and core bullet in the lungs at a velocity above the expansion threshold velocity and that critters gonna die. He may run some be he aint going far if you put it in the right place. Just use a caliber appropriate for the game. My 7 mag with a 160 AB will kill anything that walks in north America.

cajun said:

Man we like to complicate things. Put a good quality cup and core bullet in the lungs at a velocity above the expansion threshold velocity and that critters gonna die. He may run some be he aint going far if you put it in the right place. Just use a caliber appropriate for the game. My 7 mag with a 160 AB will kill anything that walks in north America.

Click to expand...

It's a given the bullet MUST entertain the vitals. Otherwise all bets are off. Makes sense to me to "Hedge" your bet a little with a bullet that has little chance to fail. It may be obvious by now I am an incontrivertible Partition fan.

1raggedhole said:

It's a given the bullet MUST entertain the vitals. Otherwise all bets are off. Makes sense to me to "Hedge" your bet a little with a bullet that has little chance to fail. It may be obvious by now I am an incontrivertible Partition fan.

Click to expand...

If the partition had a higher bc it would be the best bullet ever made. The Accubond is a very good bullet with a decent bc. For deer and smaller game the Nosler Ballistic tip is an awesome bullet. I probably have over 100 kills with various BT's on deer with zero losses and most have bang flooped or run less than 50 yds with a good blood trail.

cajun said:

If the partition had a higher bc it would be the best bullet ever made. The Accubond is a very good bullet with a decent bc. For deer and smaller game the Nosler Ballistic tip is an awesome bullet. I probably have over 100 kills with various BT's on deer with zero losses and most have bang flooped or run less than 50 yds with a good blood trail.

Click to expand...

There you go again, picking the right bullet for the job!

Other than shot placement the most important thing to me is bullet construction and how much tissue damage it does while giving an exit the majority of the time. Case in point. 15 years ago I had my first custom rifle built. 7 mag on sako action. During load dev I was trying different bullets and powders I had on hand. I had some 140 gr barnes TTSX on hand that I had loaded for a friend. The rifle shot everything great but it just loved those barnes. So I tried them. Every deer shot with them through the rib cage ran at least a 100 maybe 150 yds. Which where I was hunting made recovery a bitch. Opening the deer up there was an x pattern through the lungs but very minimal tissue damage. Swapped over to 140 BT. Same velocity at muzzle and roughly at impacts. 100-200 yds. The deer shot with the BT all had an exit but the lungs were soup. The farthest a deer has run was 40 feet. I believe that 100% weight retention bullets do not transfer much energy to the animal unless major bone is impacted. The few BT I have recovered over the years typically had 65-75 weight retention.