6mm Creedmoor first elk hunt

[436]

I think when it comes to the killing power and animals; Elmer Keith may have stated it best. Cut, tear, sever, arteries, capillaries, and veins, break bones, rip muscle, make a big hole, let a lot of hot blood out, and cold air in... i.e. pass through, dropping the blood pressure. I don't think animals die as much from shock... as they do from going into shock, blood loss... unless they cut the electrical system, and that is another conversation. Sometimes talking ballistics and killing power is like trying to prove the theory of "dark energy" Have fun, but... try not to walk out too far into the weeds over it, it's all about the fun.

Just my 0.2 Cheers

 

[quandary]

They will be very different if they are at the same energy. At 1000 ft-lb, the 215 is around 1400 fps, well below the point where upset gets unreliable. Very good chance that we have a .308ish diameter column of destroyed tissue. The 108 is doing 2050ish, and will upset reliably, producing a football shaped cavity of shredded tissue.

As Goose said to Slider you crack me up. I guess we should ignore the fact that the 215 at those numbers will be impacting at 1,200 yards and the 108 at 500 yards. You are making a laughable argument that is just dumb. By the way the velocity of the 215 out of my very mild PRC load is 2,172 fps at 500 yards. I am pretty sure it will make a big hole. Obviously the animal will be dead either way at 500 yards. At 1,200 I am pretty sure my Elk is dead, yours..... maybe but probably not.

That is the whole point, there is no one metric that means much by itself it is everything together. The higher the velocity and weight of a projectile (mmm I think that translates in energy) of the same bullet construction the higher the "killing energy". This really shouldn't be difficult to understand and accept. It is simple physics that should be learned in high school.

 

[WA Coyote]

Ahhhh…. tho old "energy transfer" wive's tale….

Energy can't be "transferred to the animal", it can only be used (via the projectile) to do Work on the animal. How that work is done, is solely dependent on the projectile construction, and the relationship between KE and Momentum.

 

[quandary]

Ahhhh…. tho old "energy transfer" wive's tale….

Energy can't be "transferred to the animal", it can only be used (via the projectile) to do Work on the animal. How that work is done, is solely dependent on the projectile construction, and the relationship between KE and Momentum.

Exactly my point. It's simply a measure of potential in this context.

P.S. You can see a few posts above how I defined "killing energy". Not to be confused with ft/lbs energy.

 

[eric1115]

As Goose said to Slider you crack me up. I guess we should ignore the fact that the 215 at those numbers will be impacting at 1,200 yards and the 108 at 500 yards. You are making a laughable argument that is just dumb. By the way the velocity of the 215 out of my very mild PRC load is 2,172 fps at 500 yards.

I am pretty sure it will make a big hole.

So will my Johnson. (slider didn't get a whole lot of lines in that movie, had to go with his best one.)

Obviously the animal will be dead either way at 500 yards. At 1,200 I am pretty sure my Elk is dead, yours..... maybe but probably not.

That is the whole point, there is no one metric that means much by itself it is everything together. The higher the velocity and weight of a projectile (mmm I think that translates in energy) of the same bullet construction the higher the "killing energy". This really shouldn't be difficult to understand and accept. It is simple physics that should be learned in high school.

What is it that you think my argument is? I think either I'm not communicating it very clearly, or you're not reading it very carefully.

Are you saying you think a 1400 FPS impact with a 215 Berger hybrid is going to provide your desired wound? I'm really not trying to get into a fight here, really trying to understand what you think defines desired terminal performance.

I'm not saying we should ignore distance at all. I'm saying that knowing the energy number doesn't tell us anything useful until we know multiple other factors, and those factors can tell us in far more detail what kind of wound we can expect to see than any kind of "rule of thumb" we might be able to apply from knowing how much KE it's carrying.

BTW, my .243AI hits that 2050fps/1000 ft lb at just under 800 yards with a 108, a little over 800 with a 109 ELDM. I'm extremely comfortable with that bullet impacting at that speed. Would I be as comfortable shooting an elk (or even deer) with a same diameter, same weight Barnes X-bullet at that impact velocity (and therefore energy)? No, I would not be inclined to think I'd get the wound channel I want.

It's a little like this... Is 200 horsepower enough to tow a horse trailer? Is it enough to win a drag race against a Mustang? Depends on if we're talking about a 12v Cummins or a BMW liter bike. Or we could be talking about my old Land cruiser that I wouldn't tow a horse trailer or win a drag race with. By the time you have the info you need in order to make use of the HP number, you no longer need the HP number to answer the question.

Edit to add: of course I do believe that a 215 Berger at 2400 fps produces a bigger wound channel than a 108 Berger at same velocity. My argument is two main points -
1) 108 Berger in this example produces a more than adequate wound channel at appropriate impact velocity. Better than a 215 produces at velocity that would make for an equal KE. As KE of those two bullets gets closer to equal, terminal performance gets more disparate. KE is not a useful metric for terminal performance. There is no one metric (KE, diameter, momentum, velocity, weight, or bullet construction) that can provide a good picture, and lots of combinations of two don't either. If I had to pick two, it would be bullet construction and impact velocity.

2) not addressed at all in my previous post, but talked about earlier in the thread... If we can get desired wound channel from a platform that everyone shoots better, why not optimize for shootability? We all do that already, it's why almost no one shoots Florida whitetails with a .408 CheyTac. Killing is about putting a sufficient wound channel in the correct location, and almost all the rodeos I've seen have resulted from failure on the "correct location" part, rarely on the "sufficient wound channel" part. I see a .300WM a lot like a 450cc dirt bike. 98% of guys using them would get down the trail faster and with fewer problems on a 250. I think 98% of guys shooting braked .300WM rifles would be better killers at all ranges with a suppressed 6.5CM or 6CM. I say that as a former die hard 7mmRM/180 Berger hybrid guy.

Sorry for the long edit, I just was rereading and seeing that there's a fair bit that I don't think I expressed very well.

 

[Ckleeves]

Exactly my point. It's simply a measure of potential in this context.

P.S. You can see a few posts above how I defined "killing energy". Not to be confused with ft/lbs energy.

So it's only useful for comparing bullets of identical construction?

So what has more "killing energy"? The 270 lrx or the 6mm 108? One is under its expansion threshold and the other isn't so I'm assuming they get some sort of multiplier for actually upsetting vs penciling?

 

[quandary]

So it's only useful for comparing bullets of identical construction?

So what has more "killing energy"? The 270 lrx or the 6mm 108? One is under its expansion threshold and the other isn't so I'm assuming they get some sort of multiplier for actually upsetting vs penciling?

It depends. Whats the velocity, whats the distance, whats the design objectives of the bullet, what's the animal. Where are you trying to hit the animal, what is the shot presentation.

 

[eric1115]

It depends. Whats the velocity, whats the distance, whats the design objectives of the bullet, what's the animal. Where are you trying to hit the animal, what is the shot presentation.

The point that a lot of us are trying to make is that with all that information you need to answer the question, we don't need to know the KE number. It adds literally nothing to the picture.

 

[Ckleeves]

It depends. Whats the velocity, whats the distance, whats the design objectives of the bullet, what's the animal. Where are you trying to hit the animal, what is the shot presentation.

600 yards, 270 LRX started at 3k vs 108 eldm started at 3125. The objective is to kill the animal cleanly. Shooting lungs. Broadside.

Which has more "killing energy" and what is the formula for determining it?

 

[quandary]

What is it that you think my argument is? I think either I'm not communicating it very clearly, or you're not reading it very carefully.

Are you saying you think a 1400 FPS impact with a 215 Berger hybrid is going to provide your desired wound? I'm really not trying to get into a fight here, really trying to understand what you think defines desired terminal performance.

I'm not saying we should ignore distance at all. I'm saying that knowing the energy number doesn't tell us anything useful until we know multiple other factors, and those factors can tell us in far more detail what kind of wound we can expect to see than any kind of "rule of thumb" we might be able to apply from knowing how much KE it's carrying.

BTW, my .243AI hits that 2050fps/1000 ft lb at just under 800 yards with a 108, a little over 800 with a 109 ELDM. I'm extremely comfortable with that bullet impacting at that speed. Would I be as comfortable shooting an elk (or even deer) with a same diameter, same weight Barnes X-bullet at that impact velocity (and therefore energy)? No, I would not be inclined to think I'd get the wound channel I want.

It's a little like this... Is 200 horsepower enough to tow a horse trailer? Is it enough to win a drag race against a Mustang? Depends on if we're talking about a 12v Cummins or a BMW liter bike. Or we could be talking about my old Land cruiser that I wouldn't tow a horse trailer or win a drag race with. By the time you have the info you need in order to make use of the HP number, you no longer need the HP number to answer the question.

Edit to add: of course I do believe that a 215 Berger at 2400 fps produces a bigger wound channel than a 108 Berger at same velocity. My argument is two main points -
1) 108 Berger in this example produces a more than adequate wound channel at appropriate impact velocity. Better than a 215 produces at velocity that would make for an equal KE. As KE of those two bullets gets closer to equal, terminal performance gets more disparate. KE is not a useful metric for terminal performance. There is no one metric (KE, diameter, momentum, velocity, weight, or bullet construction) that can provide a good picture, and lots of combinations of two don't either. If I had to pick two, it would be bullet construction and impact velocity.

2) not addressed at all in my previous post, but talked about earlier in the thread... If we can get desired wound channel from a platform that everyone shoots better, why not optimize for shootability? We all do that already, it's why almost no one shoots Florida whitetails with a .408 CheyTac. Killing is about putting a sufficient wound channel in the correct location, and almost all the rodeos I've seen have resulted from failure on the "correct location" part, rarely on the "sufficient wound channel" part. I see a .300WM a lot like a 450cc dirt bike. 98% of guys using them would get down the trail faster and with fewer problems on a 250. I think 98% of guys shooting braked .300WM rifles would be better killers at all ranges with a suppressed 6.5CM or 6CM. I say that as a former die hard 7mmRM/180 Berger hybrid guy.

Sorry for the long edit, I just was rereading and seeing that there's a fair bit that I don't think I expressed very well.

I think what I wrote is fairly obvious. You are comparing terminal effect of one bullet at 500 yards versus another at 1,200 yards. That is not a valid comparison and is a pointless discussion.

I never said that appropriately deployed a small bullet won't kill stuff. In fact in this thread I have said the opposite, repeatedly. The point is a bigger bullet of the same construction traveling at the same velocity has more killing energy, capacity, effectiveness whatever you want to call it. Further a bigger bullet will carry that killing capacity to a great distance. Not to mention all the other benefits of a larger bullet at distance. This is simple physics. For so many people to not understand this simple concept is mind blowing to me.

 

[eric1115]

I think what I wrote is fairly obvious. You are comparing terminal effect of one bullet at 500 yards versus another at 1,200 yards. That is not a valid comparison and is a pointless discussion.

I agree, they are not comparable even though the energy number is the same. That was my point; KE value is not indicative of terminal performance.

I never said that appropriately deployed a small bullet won't kill stuff. In fact in this thread I have said the opposite, repeatedly. The point is a bigger bullet of the same construction traveling at the same velocity has more killing energy, capacity, effectiveness whatever you want to call it. Further a bigger bullet will carry that killing capacity to a great distance. Not to mention all the other benefits of a larger bullet at distance. This is simple physics. For so many people to not understand this simple concept is mind blowing to me.

I'm not saying you did say that. I absolutely agree, bigger bullet of the same construction will create a larger wound than a smaller bullet of same construction given same velocity. Nobody is saying it won't. We are saying that KE is not a useful metric to describe this reality.

 

[quandary]

600 yards, 270 LRX started at 3k vs 108 eldm started at 3125. The objective is to kill the animal cleanly. Shooting lungs. Broadside.

Which has more "killing energy" and what is the formula for determining it?

What is your 270LRX? a 129 gr LRX out of a 270 or a 270 gr LRX at of a 375 RUM?

 

[Ckleeves]

Sorry I meant TSX. Bullet referenced earlier in this thread. 270 grain. Cartridge pushing it is irrelevant. Started at 3000 fps. 5000 ft altitude, 20 degrees out.

 

[quandary]

I agree, they are not comparable even though the energy number is the same. That was my point; KE value is not indicative of terminal performance.

I never said it was. I said it was indicative of potential.

I'm not saying you did say that. I absolutely agree, bigger bullet of the same construction will create a larger wound than a smaller bullet of same construction given same velocity. Nobody is saying it won't. We are saying that KE is not a useful metric to describe this reality.

This is where we disagree. It is useful because it provides a useful metric for determining potential killing effectiveness at a given range, for a given velocity, for a given weight of bullet. It is the starting point for the decision process of what load do I want to develop for a specfic rifle for a specific animal at a specific range. Does it mean anything by itself, no. To go back to the 215/108 example. If I wanted to kill an Elk at 1,200 yards I would not build my round around a 6 Creedmore shooting a 108, I probably wouldn't choose the 215 out of a PRC either but I'd be comfortable with it. I'd probably lean more towards a 245 out of a 300 RUM. More mass, more velocity more killing potential.