Best 6.5 CM Hunting Bullet for Moderate Long Range Distances

[WildRose]

How much "energy" does a 50# traditional bow put out?

Pretty sure thousands of elk are killed by those, every year.

When we start shooting bullets that have two or three, in some cases four razor sharp blades cutting a path 2" or more wide through the vitals instead of bullets you'll have a reasonable comparison to be made.

 

[WildRose]

OK Einstein, how much energy does it take to kill an elk?

That's going to vary a whole lot starting with the bullet and if it's going to expand, fragment into dozens of small pieces or pencil through.

Experts seem to agree that somewhere between 1,500-1,000 ft-lbs as a general rule but that again can vary a whole lot based on the bullet being used.

Of course bullet placement is yet another issue.

 

[snox801]

How much "energy" does a 50# traditional bow put out?

Pretty sure thousands of elk are killed by those, every year.

Different mechanisms for killing, you should already know that. The bow is one of cutting with blades like with a knife one need sufficient speed and energy to expand a bullet and cause a dispersal of fluids and tissues.
Apples and oranges.

 

[Damage Inc.]

That wasn't the question….

The question was about how much "energy" it takes to kill an elk. So the response was very appropriate.

Killing stuff isn't about "energy", it's about holes in vital organs.

A 55 grain .223 load puts out more "energy" than a 240 solid cast bullet out of a .44 Mag. (1265 fpe vs. 1160 fpe). Which would you rather have vs. elk shoulder at 50 yards?

Terminal ballistics is cornucopia of energy and momentum and bullet construction and shot placement. No one "stat" will tell us what we need to know.

 

[WildRose]

That wasn't the question….

The question was about how much "energy" it takes to kill an elk. So the response was very appropriate.

Killing stuff isn't about "energy", it's about holes in vital organs.

A 55 grain .223 load puts out more "energy" than a 240 solid cast bullet out of a .44 Mag. (1265 fpe vs. 1160 fpe). Which would you rather have vs. elk shoulder at 50 yards?

Terminal ballistics is cornucopia of energy and momentum and bullet construction and shot placement. No one "stat" will tell us what we need to know.

No, it was a lame off topic dodge considering this is a discussion about bullets and cartridges, bows have neither.

 

[WildRose]

That wasn't the question….

The question was about how much "energy" it takes to kill an elk. So the response was very appropriate.

Killing stuff isn't about "energy", it's about holes in vital organs.

A 55 grain .223 load puts out more "energy" than a 240 solid cast bullet out of a .44 Mag. (1265 fpe vs. 1160 fpe). Which would you rather have vs. elk shoulder at 50 yards?

Terminal ballistics is cornucopia of energy and momentum and bullet construction and shot placement. No one "stat" will tell us what we need to know.

Actually there is one really big overriding factor and that's velocity.

If you are way out of the recommended velocity range to give adequate terminal performance you're literally gambling and the house has a stacked deck.

Sooner or later you'll end up with one that fails to penetrate the rib cage before fragmenting or one that simply pencils through doing very little damage because impact velocity was so low it could not properly expand;
and or fragment maximizing the killing potential of that bullet passing through the body and creating a large enough shockwave to cause "hydrostatic shock" and at least instant immobility or death.

 

[snox801]

That wasn't the question….

The question was about how much "energy" it takes to kill an elk. So the response was very appropriate.

Killing stuff isn't about "energy", it's about holes in vital organs.

A 55 grain .223 load puts out more "energy" than a 240 solid cast bullet out of a .44 Mag. (1265 fpe vs. 1160 fpe). Which would you rather have vs. elk shoulder at 50 yards?

Terminal ballistics is cornucopia of energy and momentum and bullet construction and shot placement. No one "stat" will tell us what we need to know.

Nope wrong, the question was how much energy it takes in context of of bullets not blades. So that leap in logic is pretty big. But I'll bite. It doesn't take much energy to push a blade through and animal and wait for it to bleed out. Bullets need to displace fluid and tissue from tearing. Tearing takes more energy so it makes a difference. I'm actually very shocked this topic comes back up because they have plenty of papers and write ups on this would take almost zero energy to kill with a havalon blade across the neck but try pushing a round bar through same spot.

 

[snox801]

Only part that you got right is not one stat will show us.

 

[Damage Inc.]

So it takes very little "energy"…. Like you just said.

Way to dodge the .223 vs 44 Mag question…. Because that is the entire essence of this stupid *** argument.

 

[WildRose]

But I'll bite. It doesn't take much energy to push a blade through and animal and wait for it to bleed out

So it takes very little "energy"…. Like you just said.

Way to dodge the .223 vs 44 Mag question…. Because that is the entire essence of this stupid *** argument.

To push an arrow through which has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion about bullets and cartridges.

Please stop derailing the thread.

 

[WildRose]

So it takes very little "energy"…. Like you just said.

Way to dodge the .223 vs 44 Mag question…. Because that is the entire essence of this stupid *** argument.

That's going to depend entirely on your intended point of impact and type bullet loaded into your AR.

Again though off topic derailments are not welcome so can we please stick to reality and on topic?

Is there any manufacturer of traditional cup and core center fire rifle bullets, or mono's stating or advertising that their bullets will perform optimally below 1,500 or that as low as 500fps is adequate to get the intended expansion and or fragmentation the bullet is designed for?

 

[Priley]

That's going to vary a whole lot starting with the bullet and if it's going to expand, fragment into dozens of small pieces or pencil through.

Experts seem to agree that somewhere between 1,500-1,000 ft-lbs as a general rule but that again can vary a whole lot based on the bullet being used.

Of course bullet placement is yet another issue.

Wrong again. Energy isn't what kills an animal, hemorrhaging and loss of blood pressure is what kills. Also the shutting down of the CNS. A .22 can kill an elk with less the 100 lbs of kinetic energy.

 

[OldElkHunter1961]

Testy today. Me thinks some might need a nap? E will always equal M times C squared. What that chosen mass does under the influence of the squared velocity is determined by myriad factors. Shape, composition and what it struck are three that bear on terminal ballistics. One size seldom fits most. Consider a .429" 240 grain Keith bullet hitting an elk one hundred yards distance at ~1000 fps vs a .277" SGK at 2900 fps at the same 100 yards. One punches through both lungs largely unchanged in shape, the other nearly doubles it's size doing the same thing. Is there a meaningful, measurable difference in the outcome? Now consider an arrow launched from a compound bow loosed at ~300 fps passing through those same lungs at a nominal 60 yards. Different weights, velocities, shapes and compositions. All producing the same result. Who can explain the differences, if one exists in the real functional world as these projectiles are employed within their weapon systems capabilities?

 

[WildRose]

Wrong again. Energy isn't what kills an animal, hemorrhaging and loss of blood pressure is what kills. Also the shutting down of the CNS. A .22 can kill an elk with less the 100 lbs of kinetic energy.

What do you think causes the shockwave that liquifies organs like the lungs or liver without ever being struck by the bullet or a fragment?

Hydrostatic shock similarly is caused by a massive shock to the nervous system.

Both require a substantial amount of energy to occur before those processes can even begin.

This isn't broadhead thory for bow hunters, its a discussion of rifles, rounds, calibers, and bullets effectively killing at long range.

With less energy than is even required to initiate any appreciable fragmenting or mushrooming so lots of animals are lost or require multiple follow up shots to finally cause enough blood loss to ground them.