Husky user
Well-Known Member
Those many kills of Buffalo were at point blank range(well under 100 yards)Many many Buffalowere tipped over with the 45-70 and other Buffalo Cartridges starting around 1200 fps
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
How Much energy is too little?
- Thread starter WyoTex
- Start date
-
- Tags
- minimum energy opinion
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
memtb
Well-Known Member
Yes some in the early days of the slaughter. However, not the case in later years as the buffalo became much more wary and scarce. Why do you think that the 50/140 Sharps was developed? memtb
Yes! Killing is exactly that. They were not hunted (except for the Indians). There are people like Buffalo Bill hired by the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company during the the Transcontinental Railroad expansion in the 1800s to kill as many buffaloes to feed the railroad workers, hides to help finance the construction, etc., and to hurt the Indians for their opposition. The decimation of these buffalo kills was pivotal in the tragic devastation of the Indians and society. So, the buffalo kills analogy is not a good stats to use IMHO, much like the poachers killing elephants, rhinos, etc., with AK-47s, but that's just me. Moving on …
memtb
Well-Known Member
It's so hard not to say anything, but I will just enjoy my coffee
I couldn't stop myself. I felt like I did a poor job of stating my position against the use of ft/lbs. as a measure of killing performance. In some of my posts, it appeared that I may have been against the Laws of Physics…..instead of the misuse of terminology!
memtbI am a Licensed Professional Engineer. Imagine how hard it is to resist. Coffee tastes good.I couldn't stop myself. I felt like I did a poor job of stating my position against the use of ft/lbs. as a measure of killing performance. In some of my posts, it appeared that I may have been against the Laws of Physics…..instead of the misuse of terminology!
memtb
Well-Known Member
I am a Licensed Professional Engineer. Imagine how hard it is to resist. Coffee tastes good.
Which trains do ya prefer?
memtbBullet trains. Get you there faster and have the smoothest ride!Which trains do ya prefer?
WyoTex
Member
I read the terminal ballistics paper, great share btw, and I agree with the writer on the fact that the shooting world, while generally aware of the physics, really don't have the depth of knowledge to make any accurate assumptions/conclusions based on a single factor being the 'Golden Chalice' of how much is enough. Several have touched on this by bringing bullet selection, and different levels of energy based on the size of the animal into the discussion. I don't feel like you can have too much, but certainly there is an argument for too little. Frankly, there are far too many factors to consider to come up with an answer that is universal for any given situation.
What I do like seeing in these responses is folks setting personal limits on how much is enough. 1,500ft/lbs may be more than enough to get the job done, but it's better than not enough.
Interesting responses, and food for thought.
JK
100-125 lb-ft has taken a bunch of deer size game in the middle of the night at the end of a spotlight.
One game management thingy I read said probably more than a 30-30, the old gold standard. I personally know of one mining town in C that local law turns a blind eye to subsistence/night/spotlight/.22's. In the hills within earshot of town.
One game management thingy I read said probably more than a 30-30, the old gold standard. I personally know of one mining town in C that local law turns a blind eye to subsistence/night/spotlight/.22's. In the hills within earshot of town.
THE1LAF
Well-Known Member
I mainly came here for the show... but I've harvested a mule deer at 80 yds with a Ruger Blackhawk chambered in 30 Carbine... 110Gr RN to the dome, he never moved.. but the bullet didn't exit, so I'd say that's minimum.. lol 
Probably wont try that again, but I fully intend to harvest one with a suppressed 45acp at archery ranges.
Carry on.
Probably wont try that again, but I fully intend to harvest one with a suppressed 45acp at archery ranges.
Carry on.
Wait a second, what about Buffalo Hunter, ole Billy Dixon, trapped at Adobe Walls? Didn't he unhorse an Indian Brave at 1,525 yards on a documented hit with a Sharps 50-140? A horse is kind of an Elk like critter, needs how many foot pounds energy at 1,500 yards?I couldn't stop myself. I felt like I did a poor job of stating my position against the use of ft/lbs. as a measure of killing performance. In some of my posts, it appeared that I may have been against the Laws of Physics…..instead of the misuse of terminology!
I read through a whole bunch of this thread but not all. If what you choose to read below has been already been covered, my apologies. These are my thoughts.
The old time minimum required energy numbers, killing power calculations, and the like, are a largely useless pool of numbers. Folks want so badly to be able to quantify the killing power of a bullet or cartridge, but it's just not possible. If you like to look at those numbers to compare cartridges, that's cool, but using them as a guideline for killing game is useless. Like some have mentioned in this thread already, shot placement is, in my opinion the most important consideration followed by bullet performance on flesh.
The evolution of modern metallic cartridges, bullet design, etc., is slow... especially in the hunting world. Rifle bullets are rifle bullets. We have small design changes here and there to increase drag resistance, but the bullets are the same. Cartridges are in the same boat. We take some body taper out of a case here and change a shoulder angle there, apply some marketing and we have the next "gotta have" cartridge.
I have to laugh when I hear things like "Energy is Irrelevant" and "Only Impact Velocity Matters." That's similar to saying only horsepower matters to a drag racer, or a truck driver, or anyone for that matter, and we can forget about torque.
Those are outrageous claims looking to illicit an emotional response from people. We see it on social media.... We saw it in this thread. Mission accomplished.
Minimum impact velocities exist because of how the bullets are designed. When you have a single slug that can be shot out of different cartridges producing a wide range of velocities from, let's say 2,000 FPS to 4,000 FPS, which then could translate to impact velocities on flesh just slightly slower than these numbers, compromises must be made. Basically, it's impossible to build a bullet to provide ideal terminal ballistics from its peak velocity to 0. Most manufacturers have designed their supersonic hunting bullets to perform with adequate terminal effect, north of 1700 - 1800 FPS. Those of us who have hunted a lot and killed a lot of animals with different bullets through different cartridges at different speeds can attest to how speed effects bullet performance, and more importantly how unpredictable bullet performance can be.
That leads us to these claims like I mentioned above, that insinuate we only need to worry about one thing like velocity, specifically impact velocity. Well, again this doesn't paint the whole picture. Impact velocity is nothing without mass.... and energy is the byproduct of mass and velocity. Saying one is more important than the other, or one is completely irrelevant, is, once again, click bait and bad information. We need velocity and mass (KE = 0.5 × m × v²) to ensure penetration. Bow hunters understand this. Take a 40 grain arrow at 300 FPS and go shoot an elk or bear and see what happens. Bump the arrow weight up to 400 grains at the same velocity and you have something (theoretical numbers). We need perfect shot placement to poke holes in vitals, and the icing on the cake is a bullet that works as designed to disrupt tissue, fluid and a larger vital zone. We expect optimal bullet performance everytime, but that is not always the case. If you have good shot placement, you will still have an ethical kill no matter what the bullet does. I've personally seen this many times and I'm sure many of you have as well.
Velocity alone guarantees nothing. It doesn't guarantee your bullet will open up into a perfect petal with 100% weight retention, it doesn't guarantee a pass through, it doesn't guarantee penetration through dense muscle and bone. Most of us have experienced bullet failures of some sort on game. Impact on flesh results in a 100% unpredictable outcome every time. That is a fact. Lab conditions simply don't exist in the field and the variables change every time. Numbers are nothing more that a comparative tool in this game, impact on living tissue in **field conditions** is not quantifiable.
Cheers.
The old time minimum required energy numbers, killing power calculations, and the like, are a largely useless pool of numbers. Folks want so badly to be able to quantify the killing power of a bullet or cartridge, but it's just not possible. If you like to look at those numbers to compare cartridges, that's cool, but using them as a guideline for killing game is useless. Like some have mentioned in this thread already, shot placement is, in my opinion the most important consideration followed by bullet performance on flesh.
The evolution of modern metallic cartridges, bullet design, etc., is slow... especially in the hunting world. Rifle bullets are rifle bullets. We have small design changes here and there to increase drag resistance, but the bullets are the same. Cartridges are in the same boat. We take some body taper out of a case here and change a shoulder angle there, apply some marketing and we have the next "gotta have" cartridge.
I have to laugh when I hear things like "Energy is Irrelevant" and "Only Impact Velocity Matters." That's similar to saying only horsepower matters to a drag racer, or a truck driver, or anyone for that matter, and we can forget about torque.
Those are outrageous claims looking to illicit an emotional response from people. We see it on social media.... We saw it in this thread. Mission accomplished. Minimum impact velocities exist because of how the bullets are designed. When you have a single slug that can be shot out of different cartridges producing a wide range of velocities from, let's say 2,000 FPS to 4,000 FPS, which then could translate to impact velocities on flesh just slightly slower than these numbers, compromises must be made. Basically, it's impossible to build a bullet to provide ideal terminal ballistics from its peak velocity to 0. Most manufacturers have designed their supersonic hunting bullets to perform with adequate terminal effect, north of 1700 - 1800 FPS. Those of us who have hunted a lot and killed a lot of animals with different bullets through different cartridges at different speeds can attest to how speed effects bullet performance, and more importantly how unpredictable bullet performance can be.
That leads us to these claims like I mentioned above, that insinuate we only need to worry about one thing like velocity, specifically impact velocity. Well, again this doesn't paint the whole picture. Impact velocity is nothing without mass.... and energy is the byproduct of mass and velocity. Saying one is more important than the other, or one is completely irrelevant, is, once again, click bait and bad information. We need velocity and mass (KE = 0.5 × m × v²) to ensure penetration. Bow hunters understand this. Take a 40 grain arrow at 300 FPS and go shoot an elk or bear and see what happens. Bump the arrow weight up to 400 grains at the same velocity and you have something (theoretical numbers). We need perfect shot placement to poke holes in vitals, and the icing on the cake is a bullet that works as designed to disrupt tissue, fluid and a larger vital zone. We expect optimal bullet performance everytime, but that is not always the case. If you have good shot placement, you will still have an ethical kill no matter what the bullet does. I've personally seen this many times and I'm sure many of you have as well.
Velocity alone guarantees nothing. It doesn't guarantee your bullet will open up into a perfect petal with 100% weight retention, it doesn't guarantee a pass through, it doesn't guarantee penetration through dense muscle and bone. Most of us have experienced bullet failures of some sort on game. Impact on flesh results in a 100% unpredictable outcome every time. That is a fact. Lab conditions simply don't exist in the field and the variables change every time. Numbers are nothing more that a comparative tool in this game, impact on living tissue in **field conditions** is not quantifiable.
Cheers.
