6mm Creedmoor first elk hunt

[quandary]

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.

At 600 yards that TSX will be under 2,000 fps and will have a very good chance of penciling through the lungs yielding little damage. The animal would probably die as a result of the shot but will likely travel a long way. Not very good killing energy in this application. In my view the 108 would be the better choice for you in this application, more killing energy.

 

[Ckleeves]

I don't think there is a need to assign the term "killing energy" to what you're talking about. You really can't come up with a "killing energy" formula to determine wounding ability. Maybe you can but it's velocity and bullet construction driven and it doesn't really have anything to do with energy.

Velocity can be measured and we can easily determine velocity at impact, we can learn what wound channels look like from different bullets at different impact velocity's and make the determination of what's enough for the task based off those things. Then shoot some critters and look at their insides and see what happened and make our own decisions.

 

[quandary]

Seeing as it is my made up nomenclature I can define it as I like and I kinda like "killing energy".
(Velocity + weight) x bullet construction/distance = killing energy. There you go a formula.

 

[eric1115]

Seeing as it is my made up nomenclature I can define it as I like and I kinda like "killing energy".
(Velocity + weight) x bullet construction/distance = killing energy. There you go a formula.

Haha, let's say it's measured in terms of IWU (international wallop units)! Assuming it still holds for African game and Ibex, markhor, etc.

 

[quandary]

IWU i like that a lot

 

[eric1115]

IWU i like that a lot

Just need to get frontal diameter in the equation, then I bet you could license AWU (Authoritative Wallop Units) from JVB!

 

[memtb]

At 600 yards that TSX will be under 2,000 fps and will have a very good chance of penciling through the lungs yielding little damage. The animal would probably die as a result of the shot but will likely travel a long way. Not very good killing energy in this application. In my view the 108 would be the better choice for you in this application, more killing energy.

Killing energy…..or potentially more tissue damage? That damage due to the frangibility of the bullet!

Using the same scenario that you presented, a hit broadside, directly into the heaviest part of the front shoulder ….which has a greater likelihood of a kill!

Though, the kill would then likely come from the much greater mass, allowing the bullet to penetrate into the vitals……again energy irrelevant! memtb

 

[stazmania]

Where can I puchase some of the magic bullets that kill with no energy?

 

[slikmrc]

6mm Remington was my truck gun for many years, went through 3 barrels on the rifle. Built a 6 CM a year ago to replace it. Killed a lot of deer and smaller critters with it, shot deer with 60 to 105 grain bullets. 90 grain Nosler accubond is my chosen bullet for deer. At 300 yards this bullet will penetrate through both shoulder at 3200 mv. I did find a bullet under the hide of mature muley buck, if I recall it was around 55 or 60 grains. Never used the Scirocco in .243, has worked well in 30 cal. I would think your Sirocco bullet 400 yards and in should work on an Elk on a well placed shot. 2000 FPS impact velocity seems to be about the limit for the 30 cal Sirocco.

 

[quandary]

Though, the kill would then likely come from the much greater mass, allowing the bullet to penetrate into the vitals……again energy irrelevant! memtb

"Energy" is not a thing it is a label for a measure of two characteristics (velocity and mass) of an object in motion. The more velocity, mass or both the higher the energy. In and of itself it doesn't accomplish the task, hence the need for proper bullet construction. Saying that energy is irrelevant is saying velocity and projectile mass are irrelevant. I don't think anyone here would say that.

The 108 at 50 fps (low energy) wouldn't due much damage. The 108 at 1,500 fps (high energy) would due much damage. Energy, think of it as short hand for velocity and mass, is relevant as a component of the mechanics of the terminal performance of a bullet.

 

[eric1115]

Where can I puchase some of the magic bullets that kill with no energy?

Of course bullets kill by doing work which takes energy, zero people are saying they don't.

What we're saying is that a kinetic energy number doesn't tell us much of anything about the wound characteristics we can expect to see, because with just that number we know nothing about velocity, bullet construction, bullet weight, diameter. At least some of these factors that will tell us much more about the wound characteristics need to be known for the KE number to be useful.

 

[Ckleeves]

Where can I puchase some of the magic bullets that kill with no energy?

Well of course all bullets produce energy. They are moving and have mass. But the energy number doesn't really tell us anything. The "1500 lbs for elk" and "1000 lbs for deer" is complete nonsense. You can have a bullet with 1/3 the energy of another do more damage. But people repeat this constantly and there is no validity to these numbers.

The same people who hand out lectures on "use enough gun" are often the worst violators of minimum expansion velocity. They cringe at shooting a elk with a 6mm, but have no problem shooting a 600 yard elk with a big bullet that hits said elk without enough velocity to creat much wounding but they looked at the chart and it was over 1500 ft lbs so good to go in their book.

 

[quandary]

The same people who hand out lectures on "use enough gun" are often the worst violators of minimum expansion velocity. They cringe at shooting a elk with a 6mm, but have no problem shooting a 600 yard elk with a big bullet that hits said elk without enough velocity to creat much wounding but they looked at the chart and it was over 1500 ft lbs so good to go in their book.

So true! On the flip side they are no more foolish than those who think it's all about bullet construction and ignore mass and velocity*.

* Note I never said the E word