Help me decide: Minimum caliber for larger NA game

[WildRose]

What? 0grs at any velocity is going to produce ZERO energy. M x V^2 when M = 0 is still 0.

Ahh, misread it. I was using a 200gr bullet in my example.

Yes, zero would give you zero.

 

[choprzrul]

JP Sauer 100 in 30-06 and call it done.

 

[LongRange1982]

The easiest way to get more energy on target is to increase the velocity, not the diameter of the projectile.

M X V2=Energy. In English, it is the velocity which is squared not the Mass.

Yes, i understand physics. But, when it comes to large (and especially dangerous game) there is more at play than simply foot pounds of energy. I trust the words of people who hunt dangerous game regularly, e.g. Craig Boddington & Phil Shoemaker (to name a couple), and wider heavier bullets at a given level of kinetic energy simply "put down" large game faster than their smaller bullets at the same (or similar) level of kinetic energy. Case in point: if you had a 1,000 pound kodiak brown bear charging you from 50 yards, would you prefer a 6.5x300 Weatherby (~3,500 ft/lbs energy) or a 45-70 (also ~ 3,500 ft/lbs energy w/ certain loads)? I know which one i'd prefer, and it ain't the weatherby. This is where Taylor Knock Out factor comes into play. One exception (at least w/ regards to the Big Bears) is the 30-06 loaded with 220 Grain Nosler Partitions. Phil Shoemaker said this load really punches far above it's weight class in terms of penetration and killing power on the big bears.

 

[Veteran]

Choose your bullet type and cartridge caliber for the game you are going after. But once you do,
getting more velocity is going to give you more knockdown force/energy.

Thats completely what the whole idea is w hammer bullets.

Am going to go after grizzly w a .243 because Im using hammer bullets? No.

But if Im using a .338 or .375 H&H,
I would maybe want Few hundred more FpS outta my load if I can get it with whatever bullet I choose, and for grizzly it may not be hammers.
Im not interested in a blood trail, as much as devastating inner destruction, destruction of meat, tissue and even bone. I want a sledge hammer, no pun intended.
Part of that sledge is not just the size of the head, but how hard can I swing it?

Ya want John Bunyon ta hit ya w a sledge or Pee Wee Reese?

Velocity and energy matter once you have a system designed that otherwise makes sense.

 

[WildRose]

Yes, i understand physics. But, when it comes to large (and especially dangerous game) there is more at play than simply foot pounds of energy. I trust the words of people who hunt dangerous game regularly, e.g. Craig Boddington & Phil Shoemaker (to name a couple), and wider heavier bullets at a given level of kinetic energy simply "put down" large game faster than their smaller bullets at the same (or similar) level of kinetic energy. Case in point: if you had a 1,000 pound kodiak brown bear charging you from 50 yards, would you prefer a 6.5x300 Weatherby (~3,500 ft/lbs energy) or a 45-70 (also ~ 3,500 ft/lbs energy w/ certain loads)? I know which one i'd prefer, and it ain't the weatherby. This is where Taylor Knock Out factor comes into play. One exception (at least w/ regards to the Big Bears) is the 30-06 loaded with 220 Grain Nosler Partitions. Phil Shoemaker said this load really punches far above it's weight class in terms of penetration and killing power on the big bears.

The major concern with dangerous game is deep penetration because their vitals can be very deep which is why generally solids are the choice rather than expanding cup and core bullets.

Momentum comes into play in that equation and it simply takes more resistance to stop a heavier projectile vs a light one.

Even in those cases you're hoping to transfer as much of the energy as possible to the animal from the bullet so that it will drive as deeply as possible.

With a lighter bullet you end up with a dangerous possibility of the bullet stopping before it ever gets to the vitals especially on the largest game such as Rhino, Buff, Elephant and Hippo.

For that energy to do you any good it first has to get to structures it can interrupt such as pelvis, shoulders, heart, lungs, and liver and that requires a good bit of momentum.

 

[Veteran]

The major concern with dangerous game is deep penetration because their vitals can be very deep which is why generally solids are the choice rather than expanding cup and core bullets.

Momentum comes into play in that equation and it simply takes more resistance to stop a heavier projectile vs a light one.

Even in those cases you're hoping to transfer as much of the energy as possible to the animal from the bullet so that it will drive as deeply as possible.

With a lighter bullet you end up with a dangerous possibility of the bullet stopping before it ever gets to the vitals especially on the largest game such as Rhino, Buff, Elephant and Hippo.

For that energy to do you any good it first has to get to structures it can interrupt such as pelvis, shoulders, heart, lungs, and liver and that requires a good bit of momentum.

Yep a freight train is a lot harder to stop than a light car. Momentum.

 

[Goldengun]

I'm no mathematician but I think you'll find there is not a direct 1:1 relationship but a logarithmic relationship between the two.

Pull up load data for any round you choose that includes both velocity and energy and look at how they both increase or decrease proportionally.

yeah, thats what i was thinking, waiting to see if someone with the knowledge wanted to qauntify that relationship with facts!

 

[WildRose]

yeah, thats what i was thinking, waiting to see if someone with the knowledge wanted to qauntify that relationship with facts!

Well there's a number of online ballistic calculators you can use to compute it using different velocities and bullet weights.

There was a time I could probably sit down and plot it out and maybe come up with a formula but those classes were thirty years ago.

 

[Goldengun]

3000(fps) x 3000(fps) x 150(gr) = 1,350,000,000(before conversion) or roughly 2,997 ft. lbs.
2900(fps) x 2900(fps) x 160(gr) = 1,345,600,000(before conversion) or roughly 2,988 ft. lbs.

Based on this overly simple example I don't think there is much difference (neither being more important than the other) if any between velocity and mass as its overall impact to energy. This difference doesn't account for the value relationship between velocity/energy as compared to the value relationship between mass/energy.
What is obvious to us all is there is a counter-balance relationship between velocity and mass, as one goes up and the other down, energy can remain the same, if the correct relationship is maintained. I don't know what the correct relationship is. If we have the correct values of velocity and mass as they relate to the energy equation will the counterbalance always be equally offset (meaning velocity and mass have an equal bearing on energy output).???
Keep in mind I failed algebra in high school and the "first" time I took it in college!!

 

[WildRose]

3000(fps) x 3000(fps) x 150(gr) = 1,350,000,000(before conversion) or roughly 2,997 ft. lbs.
2900(fps) x 2900(fps) x 160(gr) = 1,345,600,000(before conversion) or roughly 2,988 ft. lbs.

Based on this overly simple example I don't think there is much difference (neither being more important than the other) if any between velocity and mass as its overall impact to energy. This difference doesn't account for the value relationship between velocity/energy as compared to the value relationship between mass/energy.
What is obvious to us all is there is a counter-balance relationship between velocity and mass, as one goes up and the other down, energy can remain the same, if the correct relationship is maintained. I don't know what the correct relationship is. If we have the correct values of velocity and mass as they relate to the energy equation will the counterbalance always be equally offset (meaning velocity and mass have an equal bearing on energy output).???
Keep in mind I failed algebra in high school and the "first" time I took it in college!!

You reduced the velocity by 100fps and increased the mass by only 10gr.

The increase in velocity shows an expected much higher impact on energy over simply increasing the mass.

Bullet Energy Calculator (Foot Pounds)

This reloading article provides a ballistic calculator that helps you compare different weight bullets, at any velocity, to see which one will hit harder.

larrywillis.com

 

[Goldengun]

You reduced the velocity by 100fps and increased the mass by only 10gr.

View attachment 345814

View attachment 345815

The increase in velocity shows an expected much higher impact on energy over simply increasing the mass.

View attachment 345816


View attachment 345817

Bullet Energy Calculator (Foot Pounds)

This reloading article provides a ballistic calculator that helps you compare different weight bullets, at any velocity, to see which one will hit harder.

larrywillis.com

I know we all run these calculations all the time, it shows 100fps is not equal to 10 grains(10:1), relative to energy output, but close. What "I" think it shows is that velocity and mass are relatively if not absolutely equal in their relations to energy output at the barrel. Pick your poison, they both have benefits after the barrel, and a whole new group of inputs and arguments.

 

[WildRose]

I know we all run these calculations all the time, it shows 100fps is not equal to 10 grains(10:1), relative to energy output, but close. What "I" think it shows is that velocity and mass are relatively if not absolutely equal in their relations to energy output at the barrel. Pick your poison, they both have benefits after the barrel, and a whole new group of inputs and arguments.

10gr=1/15th of the mass

100fps=1/30th of the velocity.

Not exactly apples to apples.

 

[Kimber7man]

10gr=1/15th of the mass

100fps=1/300th of the velocity.

Not exactly apples to apples.

Wait, isn't 100 fps = 1/30th?

 

[WildRose]

Wait, isn't 100 fps = 1/30th?

Good catch, my fat fingers got me again. I'll fix that.