Effective Game Killing

[FEENIX]

I know this can be controversial, esp. to the naysayers, because some do not believe in (kinetic) energy transfer and shock, but that's OK. These articles are for open-minded folks willing and able to learn and add to their knowledge base. IMHO, Nathan Foster of https://www.ballisticstudies.com/ effectively captured the interrelationships of:

- How bullets kill
- Mechanism > kinetic energy transfer (Newton's Law of Physics)
- Fast killing
- Hydrostatic/hydraulic shock
- Wound factors
- Bullet weight, diameter, construction
- Shot placement

Part 1, https://www.norma-ammunition.com/en...ted-hunting/ammunition/effective-game-killing

Part 2, https://www.norma-ammunition.com/en...ting/ammunition/effective-game-killing-part-2

 

[Deputy819]

This is excellent! Sometimes we just gotta go back to "the basics", ya know?

 

[FEENIX]

This is excellent! Sometimes we just gotta go back to "the basics", ya know?

Yes, Sir! Hopefully, the conversation that this thread generates will stay civil.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Excellent article.

The only point I will make is that in his section about mechanical action, he uses velocity (and puts KE in parenthesis as velocity is a main component of KE) as the component that is the important factor on how a bullet performs in game (determining wound factors). I too have reverted to using velocity, rather than KE, as the data point used to determine a bullets potential at a certain distance when I am putting together loads and why I have, and will continue, to say that in a lot of cases, as long as you have the velocity, the KE number is not that important. Again (degreed engineer here) I completely understand that the two are inexorably linked, but for what the majority of us are trying to do, sticking with figuring out impact velocity will give us the information needed to make good decisions when choosing bullets and loads.

His conculsions about using heavy-for-caliber bullets also put into words what a lot of people are finding out in the field as those types of bullets become more popular in the hunting community.

 

[Ol' Red]

Very good read. I only had time to read part one while having my coffee. I will read the second part tonight, Thanks for posting.

 

[FEENIX]

I completely understand that the two are inexorably linked, but for what the majority of us are trying to do, sticking with figuring out impact velocity will give us the information needed to make good decisions when choosing bullets and loads.

"My" unwritten rule is 1800 FPS/1500 FT-LBS for elk-size game and 1000 FT-LBS for deer-size game at POI. This puts me at a more conservative decision-making than most. My farthest elk harvest to date is 931Y with 190 Berger VLD (heaviest for 1:11") out of my .300 WM. At 925Y, 1805 FPS/1421 FT-LBS).

His conculsions about using heavy-for-caliber bullets also put into words what a lot of people are finding out in the field as those types of bullets become more popular in the hunting community.

I am one on of those heavy-for-caliber guy, i.e., 163 Chinchaga (.257 WBY), 175 Matrix VLD (.270 AI), 215 Berger (.300 WSM), 230/245 Berger (.30 Lara), 250/300 Berger/350 Chinchaga ST (.338 Thor), etc.

 

[HandgunHTR]

"My" unwritten rule is 1800 FPS/1500 FT-LBS for elk-size game and 1000 FT-LBS for deer-size game at POI. This puts me at a more conservative decision-making than most. My farthest elk harvest to date is 931Y with 190 Berger VLD (heaviest for 1:11") out of my .300 WM. At 925Y, 1805 FPS/1421 FT-LBS).

I have just gone to the 1800 fps requirement and find that energy just isn't that important. If the bullet expands and/or fragments at that speed, the wound channel will be sufficient to cause quick kills. It may not produce the severe shock to cause a "DRT", but it will kill them.
Add to that the ability to spot and hear my shots, and I have become a much more effective killer in the last few years.

 

[dfanonymous]

Hopefully, the conversation that this thread generates will stay civil.

Depends on how dumb and ignorant some of the comments get.

Nothing in the article is particularly ground breaking. Most of this information has been known, studied and published for the last 20 years in some way or another.

Where things seem to get wild on the forums is where it's mentioned that "one bullet doesn't do it all" (paraphrased) and people rely to the exact foot lb as a limiter to their reach (max distance).

Different bullets act differently at different ranges with more or less forgiveness. It's hard to qualify such performance because there's no testing control at such distances. I can't even specify a range, because no one even agrees on what distance long range hunting begins…


All the same, people hyper focus on the ft lb number but will casually gloss over any mentioning, including in the article, that a CNS disruption is not even guaranteed, even if you "do everything right."

 

[memtb]

His conculsions about using heavy-for-caliber bullets also put into words what a lot of people are finding out in the field as those types of bullets become more popular in the hunting community

I can't say that I'm a "heavy for caliber" hunter. But, I'm darn certain that I'm "not" a "light for caliber" hunter…..even with monos! That's been my philosophy since the '60's.

And before someone comments about the year ……that's the 1960's! memtb

 

[HandgunHTR]

I can't say that I'm a "heavy for caliber" hunter. But, I'm darn certain that I'm "not" a "light caliber" hunter…..even with monos! That's been my philosophy since the '60's.

And before someone comments about the year ……that's the 1960's! memtb

Fixed it for you.

 

[cajun]

I like nathans work. If you go to his site you will see bullet descriptions by caliber with terminal performance. For example in the 6.5 sweede he lists the old 140 amax as an effective long range bullet. Of course this applies to the creed 260 etc. I have found his results to be similar to mine with the bullets we have both used.