270 win 130gr vs 140gr vs 150gr

[lancetkenyon]

Back when I had a .270Win, I had a 130 NBT load for deer @ 3150, and a 150 VLD load for elk @ 3020. Both shot equally well.

Once I actually started LEARNING about ballistics and terminal performance, I only loaded the 150s. We killed a lot of game with it over the years. Deer and elk. A lot of first kills too. Including my Dad's first deer.

 

[memtb]

I honestly do not know what that means.

FEENIX, I guess that I'm not certain about what you mean!

If you're suggesting that ft/lbs energy was a significant factor in the quick death of that moose…..I'm not convinced!

Several years ago I shot an elk at around 50 yards, broadside, behind the shoulder…..no visual indication of a hit. He continued walking, though at a slightly increased pace, for a few yards then tipped over.

If ft/lbs energy were so significant ……I suspect that the 5000+ ft/lbs energy that was applied to my little (as in comparison to the moose) elk was much greater ft/lbs of energy applied to that moose @ 890 yards! Then if you "guestimate" the weight differential between my elk and that moose, factor in the ft/lbs energy difference between the two bullets at impact….. I suspect that my elk absorbed about 3X the ft/lbs energy as did the moose.

So I contend that bullet energy (ft/lbs) transfered to big game animals from a conventional, shoulder fired hunting rifle is rather insignificant.

If the energy remains the same, and the animal is substantially larger….I contend that ft/lbs energy is substantially/comparatively "less" important!

Perhaps we can agree on this point……if/when a bullet destroys vital organs, cutting/tearing arteries/vessels, that animal will quickly expire due to a significant drop in blood pressure. That significant drop in blood pressure, will cause "said animal" to "tip over"…..just like in the video.

I strongly suspect however, ft/lbs energy had little to do with the disruption of arterial blood flow. When the brain is deprived of oxygen…..the animal will pretty quickly collapse. If the animal is excited/stimulated, and the blood highly oxygenated……said animal will remain standing a bit longer! memtb

 

[FEENIX]

FEENIX, I guess that I'm not certain about what you mean!

If you're suggesting that ft/lbs energy was a significant factor in the quick death of that moose…..I'm not convinced!

Several years ago I shot an elk at around 50 yards, broadside, behind the shoulder…..no visual indication of a hit. He continued walking, though at a slightly increased pace, for a few yards then tipped over.

If ft/lbs energy were so significant ……I suspect that the 5000+ ft/lbs energy that was applied to my little (as in comparison to the moose) elk was much greater ft/lbs of energy applied to that moose @ 890 yards! Then if you "guestimate" the weight differential between my elk and that moose, factor in the ft/lbs energy difference between the two bullets at impact….. I suspect that my elk absorbed about 3X the ft/lbs energy as did the moose.

So I contend that bullet energy (ft/lbs) transfered to big game animals from a conventional, shoulder fired hunting rifle is rather insignificant.

If the energy remains the same, and the animal is substantially larger….I contend that ft/lbs energy is substantially/comparatively "less" important!

Perhaps we can agree on this point……if/when a bullet destroys vital organs, cutting/tearing arteries/vessels, that animal will quickly expire due to a significant drop in blood pressure. That significant drop in blood pressure, will cause "said animal" to "tip over"…..just like in the video.

I strongly suspect however, ft/lbs energy had little to do with the disruption of arterial blood flow. When the brain is deprived of oxygen…..the animal will pretty quickly collapse. If the animal is excited/stimulated, and the blood highly oxygenated……said animal will remain standing a bit longer! memtb

You just complicated things unnecessarily. No one is saying energy transfer is the only factor (bullet choice/construction, velocity and energy on POI, shot placement, etc.), but dismissing the laws of physics (energy transfer, dump, or whatever terminology to get the point across) as insignificant is asinine. The beauty of it all is that you can completely ignore it, but it is always there whether you accept it or not, and it always works for you, regardless of your shot placement (heart/lung or shoulder).

 

[FEENIX]

Back when I had a .270Win, I had a 130 NBT load for deer @ 3150, and a 150 VLD load for elk @ 3020. Both shot equally well.

Once I actually started LEARNING about ballistics and terminal performance, I only loaded the 150s. We killed a lot of game with it over the years. Deer and elk. A lot of first kills too. Including my Dad's first deer.

@Andy92, Lance provided you with the most straightforward response to your question.

 

[memtb]

You just complicated things unnecessarily. No one is saying energy transfer is the only factor (bullet choice/construction, velocity and energy on POI, shot placement, etc.), but dismissing the laws of physics (energy transfer, dump, or whatever terminology to get the point across) as insignificant is asinine. The beauty of it all is that you can completely ignore it, but it is always there whether you accept it or not, and it always works for you, regardless of your shot placement (heart/lung or shoulder).

I'm not dismissing it…..merely stating that it's vastly overrated pertaining to big game.

Broadheads kill quite effectively with all of the thing ps that you listed…..with near zero ft/lbs energy transfer to the animal!

If energy is the "black magic" by which game is killed……why are so many folks starting to use cartridges/bullets with far less ft/lbs energy. The simple answer is "surgical placement" of the bullet, doing all of the things you mentioned….. and doing it with mediocre ft/lbs energy! memtb

 

[FEENIX]

I'm not dismissing it…..merely stating that it's vastly overrated pertaining to big game.

Broadheads kill quite effectively with all of the thing ps that you listed…..with near zero ft/lbs energy transfer to the animal!

If energy is the "black magic" by which game is killed……why are so many folks starting to use cartridges/bullets with far less ft/lbs energy. The simple answer is "surgical placement" of the bullet, doing all of the things you mentioned….. and doing it with mediocre ft/lbs energy! memtb

As I said, you are complicating things unnecessarily; hemorrhaging and hydrostatic shock are two different things.

 

[memtb]

As I said, you are complicating things unnecessarily; hemorrhaging and hydrostatic shock are two different things.

Obviously they are different. However, ft/lbs energy or hydrostatic shock are not necessary! They may be a contributing factor……but are vastly overrated.

I suspect that you and I are of similar age, and we " poured" over the same firearms and ammunition sales catalogs of our day, often mimorizing the energy #'s, trajectory tables, ect. of our favorite cartridges. We saw these as the written gospel pertaining to firearms, ammunition, and hunting.

Though, during the times before Christopher Columbus it was thought that the earth was flat, that hypothesis has been proven incorrect…..much like the highly regarded value of ft/lbs energy in a bullets lethality factor!

And I've been called a "Flat Earther"!

Good Night Partner…….we'll take this up again, I'm certain! memtb

 

[FEENIX]

Obviously they are different. However, ft/lbs energy or hydrostatic shock are not necessary! They may be a contributing factor……but are vastly overrated.

I suspect that you and I are of similar age, and we " poured" over the same firearms and ammunition sales catalogs of our day, often mimorizing the energy #'s, trajectory tables, ect. of our favorite cartridges. We saw these as the written gospel pertaining to firearms, ammunition, and hunting.

Though, during the times before Christopher Columbus it was thought that the earth was flat, that hypothesis has been proven incorrect…..much like the highly regarded value of ft/lbs energy in a bullets lethality factor!

And I've been called a "Flat Earther"!

Good Night Partner…….we'll take this up again, I'm certain! memtb

Again, you continue to complicate things unnecessarily, introducing irrelevant information.

@Andy92, I'm sorry your thread got hijacked unnecessarily. Stay your course, and you'll be fine. Good luck on your hunt.

 

[Lou270]

While I won't get in the energy debate, the old an "arrow doesn't have a lot of ft-lbs" argument annoys me. An arrow going 100 ft/s also kills quite well but nobody uses that as a rationale for low velocity

As for 130, 140, 150 - they all work. I have killed a bunch of game with all. If you are dialing and all that a higher BC 140/150 make sense. For point and shoot 0-400 a 130 is tough to beat. For tougher game a stout 140/150 would get my pick. In reality, Given all the options in bullets these days there is more overlap in performance than few grains

Lou