How Much energy is too little?

[southpa]

You cannot compare a tiny bullet to a 230 grain bullet regardless of what it's launched from. You have more material/mass to destroy tissue.

Mike you can compare any bullet to any other bullet. Especially tiny lightweight bullets that carry very little energy to larger heavier bullets that carry a lot more energy. Which is kinda the premise of this thread.

 

[6.5x300 WBY]

Copper based bullets at high velocity is their specialty. Cup n core Not so much

 

[FEENIX]

So feenix, what killed that elk?

Sufficient Kinetic energy delivered the potential energy of the bullet with the required velocity to expand effectively per design and construction at POI with proper shot placement, transferring the energy to the vitals to expire the elk.

 

[HARPERC]

Just look at it....seems to prove opposite of a lot of opinions and in line with my experience....velocity don't seem to help this gentleman

A good video. Absent is bullet performance, or at least a decent necropsy.

 

[Tom264]

So feenix, what killed that elk?

Sufficient Kinetic energy delivered the potential energy of the bullet with the required velocity to expand effectively per design and constructionat POI with proper shot placement, transferring the energy to the vitals to expire the elk.

But wait.
According to my calculations that bullet hit with approximately 850 ft lbs of energy.
So what about the 1500 required????

 

[FEENIX]

Sufficient Kinetic energy delivered the potential energy of the bullet with the required velocity to expand effectively per design and constructionat POI with proper shot placement, transferring the energy to the vitals to expire the elk.

But wait.
According to my calculations that bullet hit with approximately 850 ft lbs of energy.
So what about the 1500 required????

Who said it was required? Which part of "My" unwritten rule was not clear to you? I thought I had clarified it and was not forcing anyone to do the same. You can stick with your belief, and I will stay with mine. What is so hard to comprehend if I prefer to keep it 1500 FT-LBS over 850 FT-LBS and stay conservative?

"My" unwritten rule is 1000 FT-LBS for antelope/deer-size game and 1500 FT-LBS for elk-size game and higher than the minimum recommended bullet velocity (a critical choice) to expand at POI effectively. It has not failed me for many decades. The NUT (who is responsible for bullet choice, shot placement, etc.) behind the trigger remains the most significant factor.

As you can see from your original response, a bullet alone does not kill. The potential energy of a bullet needs a delivery system (Kinetic energy) to deliver its lethality to the intended target.

Energy don't kill bullets do.
If we relied on energy then I guess archery equipment is gonna have to up its game.
Bullets kill!!!! Broadheads kill!!!
Not energy.

The laws of physics are on our side.

As per the laws of physics, energy is not created or destroyed but merely changes forms and is transferred from potential to kinetic to thermal energy.

 

[asd9055]

Sufficient Kinetic energy delivered the potential energy of the bullet with the required velocity to expand effectively per design and constructionat POI with proper shot placement, transferring the energy to the vitals to expire the elk.

But wait.
According to my calculations that bullet hit with approximately 850 ft lbs of energy.
So what about the 1500 required????

ft lbs is Torque. ft lbsf or better lbsf ft is energy.

 

[asd9055]

OK, I am out again, back to watching...

 

[southpa]

A good video. Absent is bullet performance, or at least a decent necropsy.

Yes the tiny, low energy lightweight, bullet deff did not perform. I'm doubtful a necropsy is needed to decifer this haha. Just watch it.

 

[HARPERC]

Yes the tiny, low energy lightweight, bullet deff did not perform. I'm doubtful a necropsy is needed to decifer this haha. Just watch it.

I did watch it. Animals are killed by destruction of vital organs, absent tracking the damage the film becomes less meaningful. True whether we are using a .378 Weatherby, or a .223.

Not much on .224's for more than gophers, but this would appear to be range more suited to a hyper velocity .224.

I can tell you first hand about a very large man, in heavy winter clothes, dropped in his tracks, with a non CNS hit at 3x that range. Doesn't validate that as a choice absent some anatomy, and physiology.

 

[dogz]

Yes the tiny, low energy lightweight, bullet deff did not perform. I'm doubtful a necropsy is needed to decifer this haha. Just watch it.

A 55 grain hard bullet like a Barnes is not a winner for taking things down quickly especially when started at 3K fps........

Of course we all know that if we use things enough that sooner or later you'll see something that makes you go hmm....in this case the critter got going and putting it down with a hard bullet started at that speed was more than likely going to be tough sledding.

Now add 400-600 fps (22/250, 22 CM, 22/250 AI) and a soft point like 55 Horn w/c, 63 Sierra, 60 Horn sp and things will happen a heck of a lot quicker!

Just one of the reasons why I'm not a huge mono fan especially when running at slowish speeds.

Just my 3 cents (again)

(one interesting thing is that they actually let the video roll for the whole thing, I can tell you that that doesn't always happen, be just a bit aware of the vids that show a critter hit the turf and then the vid Ends........

 

[southpa]

I did watch it. Animals are killed by destruction of vital organs, absent tracking the damage the film becomes less meaningful. True whether we are using a .378 Weatherby, or a .223.

Not much on .224's for more than gophers, but this would appear to be range more suited to a hyper velocity .224.

I can tell you first hand about a very large man, in heavy winter clothes, dropped in his tracks, with a non CNS hit at 3x that range. Doesn't validate that as a choice absent some anatomy, and physiology.

If you watched it than what are you having a hard time with? Was it the obvious lack of vital destruction to internal organs that has you confused?

 

[HARPERC]

If you watched it than what are you having a hard time with? Was it the obvious lack of vital destruction to internal organs that has you confused?

Obvious vs limited data judgement.

We have those here that provide forensic info with their video's. Video is a good start, but incomplete in my view. Even it's something that supports my preconceived theories.

No substitute for digging bullets. Hero pictures are great, but only tell a part of the story.

 

[southpa]

Obvious vs limited data judgement.

We have those here that provide forensic info with their video's. Video is a good start, but incomplete in my view. Even it's something that supports my preconceived theories.

No substitute for digging bullets. Hero pictures are great, but only tell a part of the story.

Understood, so what is it that you see when you see a video like this? What kind of idea or opinion do you form before having any other evidence or useful info based on watching?
You said vital destruction was key to death so you cannot derive that there was enough vital destruction to cleanly and swiftly kill this animal? Or will you need to see it baaaa longer in pain after 3 shots in the bread basket. Im curious how a necropsy will prove your point about that vital destruction that clearly wasn't delivered quite handily?