lerch
<strong>SPONSOR</strong>
How ya'll doing??
Well about a year ago when i was brand new on the forum I posted a question about bullet penetration vs. a bullet depositing all of its energy inside a animal. The question got some useful answers and also started a argument too, like all good questions do. I have since read most of those posts and I have altered my original stance. I no longer believe a bullet depositing all of its energy inside of a animal is enough to kill, you can get swarzenager, no way i spelled that right, to whack a elk with a sledge hammer in the shoulder and I doubt it would kill it on the spot.
My question is this. What do you guys think is more important, overall bullet diameter or retained energy on impact???
Which would be better, a 224 diameter bullet impacting a animal with 3000 ftlbs or a 45 cal bullet hitting a animal at 1500fps???
I guess my overall question is where is the drawing point between speed and carried energy and enough bullet diameter to impart a massive wound channel??
Say you have a very small diameter bullet, 22cal for example, even with a heavy weight bullet if it doesnt expand you still have a relatively small wound channel. IF this bullet is heavy for caliber and traveling at a great rate of speed you will certainly have the substantial ft lbs of energy ammo makers love to advertise. BUt if the bullet doesnt expand much then what you are left with is still a relatively small wound channel.
Likewise if you have a large diameter bullet traveling at a relativly low rate of speed you would have the initial massive wound channel but without the retained energy where is the inertia to propel the bullet forward into the animal.
So where is the give and take point?? Which is better, to have a massive brick that imparts tremedous stopping power to the animal or a smaller bullet that retains much more energy and drives completly through the animal??
Sorry if i do not pose the questin very clearly, my mind works at a different speed than my hands, i will not say who is quicker
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
thanks
steve
Well about a year ago when i was brand new on the forum I posted a question about bullet penetration vs. a bullet depositing all of its energy inside a animal. The question got some useful answers and also started a argument too, like all good questions do. I have since read most of those posts and I have altered my original stance. I no longer believe a bullet depositing all of its energy inside of a animal is enough to kill, you can get swarzenager, no way i spelled that right, to whack a elk with a sledge hammer in the shoulder and I doubt it would kill it on the spot.
My question is this. What do you guys think is more important, overall bullet diameter or retained energy on impact???
Which would be better, a 224 diameter bullet impacting a animal with 3000 ftlbs or a 45 cal bullet hitting a animal at 1500fps???
I guess my overall question is where is the drawing point between speed and carried energy and enough bullet diameter to impart a massive wound channel??
Say you have a very small diameter bullet, 22cal for example, even with a heavy weight bullet if it doesnt expand you still have a relatively small wound channel. IF this bullet is heavy for caliber and traveling at a great rate of speed you will certainly have the substantial ft lbs of energy ammo makers love to advertise. BUt if the bullet doesnt expand much then what you are left with is still a relatively small wound channel.
Likewise if you have a large diameter bullet traveling at a relativly low rate of speed you would have the initial massive wound channel but without the retained energy where is the inertia to propel the bullet forward into the animal.
So where is the give and take point?? Which is better, to have a massive brick that imparts tremedous stopping power to the animal or a smaller bullet that retains much more energy and drives completly through the animal??
Sorry if i do not pose the questin very clearly, my mind works at a different speed than my hands, i will not say who is quicker
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
thanks
steve