6mm Creedmoor first elk hunt

[fseaman]

But there's no basis whatsoever for those energy numbers.

There is but you don't want to acknowledge it so all good.

 

[clark33]

There is but you don't want to acknowledge it so all good.

Whelen came up with those numbers in the 1920s, sooooo much has changed in bullet technology/design. Those KE thresholds really aren't relevant anymore.

 

[Ckleeves]

The energy argument is complete nonsense. If anybody can provide actual evidence of animals being killed my energy I'm all ears. It's fudlore that gets constantly repeated. Take the 270 LRX with the numbers above vs the little 6 with something like a 108 Eldm and the 270 lrx more then likely isn't even going to upset or leave any sort of wound channel ( think FMJ) but it exceeds the 1500 lb "rule". The 108 doesn't meet the "rule" but its going to do more damage.

 

[akmtnhnt]

There is but you don't want to acknowledge it so all good.

Not to anyone that understands animals aren't killed by heating them with bullet friction.

 

[stazmania]

Everyone always says FPE do not matter or is irrelevant. Foot lbs. of energy is relevant. It is the measure that tells you what is available for use at the target. It is up to you to decide "using bullet choice" how two spend that energy. This is the real argument for this thread. And that is where most miss the boat.

 

[memtb]

The energy argument is complete nonsense. If anybody can provide actual evidence of animals being killed my energy I'm all ears. It's fudlore that gets constantly repeated. Take the 270 LRX with the numbers above vs the little 6 with something like a 108 Eldm and the 270 lrx more then likely isn't even going to upset or leave any sort of wound channel ( think FMJ) but it exceeds the 1500 lb "rule". The 108 doesn't meet the "rule" but its going to do more damage.

Some folks need some form of numerical system to validate their beliefs! The ft/lb theory/fallacy provides them the comfort they require, after all ……seeing it in numerical form solidifies this as fact, it's all the proof they need!

Using the ft/lbs energy theory of, let's say 1500 ft/lbs to reliably kill an elk without a CNS shot…..just how many ft/lbs energy has been established to reliably kill an adult African Elephant without a CNS shot?

I can only guess that it's of substantial value! If that hypothetical value is relevant……can a mere mortal shoulder and fire such a firearm? memtb

 

[WA Coyote]

A 55 grain .22-250 = 1700 fpe
A 340 grain +p+ .44 mag = 1550 fpe

One of them will go through an elk end long… the other won't exit a coyote.

Kinetic Energy doesn't mean squat if you suffer from Projectile Dysfunction.

 

[akmtnhnt]

Some folks need some form of numerical system to validate their beliefs! The ft/lb theory/fallacy provides them the comfort they require, after all ……seeing it in numerical form solidifies this as fact, it's all the proof they need!

Using the ft/lbs energy theory of, let's say 1500 ft/lbs to reliably kill an elk without a CNS shot…..just how many ft/lbs energy has been established to reliably kill an adult African Elephant without a CNS shot?

I can only guess that it's of substantial value! If that hypothetical value is relevant……can a mere mortal shoulder and fire such a firearm? memtb

1500ft-lbs going through and stopping in 18in of elk is about 3050J. For a 700lb elk, that'd heat it about .0041 degrees F. Died of heat stroke clearly.

 

[akmtnhnt]

Everyone always says FPE do not matter or is irrelevant. Foot lbs. of energy is relevant. It is the measure that tells you what is available for use at the target. It is up to you to decide "using bullet choice" how two spend that energy. This is the real argument for this thread. And that is where most miss the boat.

Assuming no CNS hits,
What is the mechanism of death with a 1500ft-lb of energy bullet that expends all of it inside the animal?
And what is the mechanism of death of a 300ft-lb arrow that goes through the animal? Or a 50ft-lb spear?

 

[Fenix Outdoors]

I think I understand what you are saying here. Can we just stress that people use actual empirical evidence based decisions. Buy a chronograph, download ballistic software. And verify that information against real world verified drop data. If you know how much energy you have at each range you can make educated decisions on how far you can shoot effectively.

The quick rule of thumb I have always heard is 1000FTLBS for deer and 1500FTLBS for elk.
This limits me to 200 yards for deer with the 223 AR for example.

Again, folklore told in the vacuum and echo chambers in the shooting and hunting world. The FBI ballistics laboratory, Martin Fackler and others in the in-depth study of wound ballistics have proven at great length that ft/lbs of energy has very little to do with how bullets kill animals and people. Terminal ballistics (optimized or peak upset resulting in permanent crush cavity) of bullets kill, not energy.

 

[stazmania]

Again, folklore told in the vacuum and echo chambers in the shooting and hunting world. The FBI ballistics laboratory, Martin Fackler and others in the in-depth study of wound ballistics have proven at great length that ft/lbs of energy has very little to do with how bullets kill animals and people. Terminal ballistics (optimized or peak upset resulting in permanent crush cavity) of bullets kill, not energy.

The energy available/remaining at the target is what is optimized by bullet design to create both temporary and permanent crush cavity. Energy transferred for shock/dispersion or penetration can still be measured by foot pounds

 

[akmtnhnt]

The energy available/remaining at the target is what is optimized by bullet design to create both temporary and permanent crush cavity. Energy transferred for shock/dispersion or penetration can still be measured by foot pounds

How are you measuring how much energy was transferred?