How Much energy is too little?

[FEENIX]

It's no different than driving a car. I don't need to know all the equations that make it do what it does. I just follow the recommendations and I go from A to B. It's hand someone wants to do something different when those equations need to be considered. Someone else's has done the work for us for almost everything we do in life. And with that, I am out! Enjoy!

LOL, your engineering background is showing. Me too; I'd rather experiment with food stuff; it takes less energy and is more rewarding.

 

[dk17hmr]

Shot a cow elk in the brain point blank with a 32acp and a 60gr Winchester silver tip with a huge 125 foot pounds ......of course I had already shot her with a 280 remington she was done just wasnt dead yet.

Killing is easy getting the bullet in the right spot is the hard part.

 

[asd9055]

LOL, your engineering background is showing. Me too; I'd rather experiment with food stuff; it takes less energy and is more rewarding.

Takes energy to cook, though heat is the lowest form

 

[del2les]

I'd like to see a discussion on what is considered 'Enough' energy to effectively kill an Elk, Deer, Antelope...critter in general.

I've seen folks suggest that anything over 1100ft/lbs all the way to a minimum of 1500. While looking at some Pistol data, I found that a .45ACP 230gn bullet has 369 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle. I'm willing to bet I could kill an Elk with a .45ACP at point blank, not that it'd be my preferred weapon/cartridge of choice.

So, assuming a .45 with 369 ft/lbs is adequate to kill an Elk, at point blank, why do so many people think they must have AT LEAST 1100 or 1500 ft/lbs of energy or any other arbitrary amount of energy? What is this based on? Is there any empirical data to support a specific minimum? Where do these figures originate?

LET THE OPINIONS FLY!

JK

There have been numerous discussions on this and other forums concerning "energy" designated as ft/lbs or lb/ft as it is now. The old arbitrary "minimums" stated as 1,000ft/lbs for deer sized game and 1,500ft/lbs for elk sized have no real bearing when compared to reality of hunting experiences.

Far too many game animals were killed through the centuries with weapons that either had less than those "minimums" at the muzzle or at least at the impact range of those old muzzle loaders and BP cartridges. In more modern times, numerous handgun hunters, myself included, have killed various game with handguns that do not even have 1,000ft/lbs at the muzzle, especially at impact range. I.e my 357 mag loads in 6-8" revolvers and 10" Contenders. Your 45 ACP being a good example, as it too has taken a few deer, hogs and even bear during its time.

To me, as long as there is enough "momentum" for the proper bullet to penetrate to and hopefully through the vitals and cause enough trauma to cause massive blood loss and asphyxiation leading to fairly rapid death, then that bullet/load/cartridge has done its job. The rest is up to me to place it where it needs to go.

 

[FEENIX]

Takes energy to cook, though heat is the lowest form

Yes, but this energy transformation requirement does not require the same energy that I have shared in the past. I am making biltong, and it's in my garage, curing at ambient temperature. Today is day one. I would hang it outside, but it is snowing.

 

[asd9055]

Yes, but this energy transformation requirement does not require the same energy that I have shared in the past. I am making biltong, and it's in my garage, curing at ambient temperature. Today is day one. I would hang it outside, but it is snowing.

View attachment 556614

I'd love some even though I don't know what it is. I am sure that if you prepared it it will be delicious

 

[cabelasken]

Enough energy for me is a caliber and bullet that will provide an impact velocity above 2250 FPS and will always expand to 2X and for the most part exit. With that said, I have not shot an elk with a caliber less than .284 or a deer with less than .243 and have stuck with mid to lightweight mono's that feature 100 % weight retention. I would expect the energy in these cases to be well above the 1500 FT lbs for elk and 1000 for deer. I know of a 6X6 bull that was completely knocked off it's feet from a large Accubond from a 338 Lapua at 550 yds and it got up and took off with the herd. I knocked that bull down with my WSM 3/4 of a mile later but it still did not die and we had to put another round in it to claim the animal. My bullet had penetrated over 24" diagonal thru the bull from just in front of near ham to the far side shoulder - the only shot location I had. Elk are tough animals.

 

[Lou270]

Rules of thumb and min requirement game laws are mostly there to keep people from doing something dumb. By default they tend to be at least a little conservative to weed out most of the stunt shooters and ignorant/inexperienced. The ultimate goal is to not just kill an animal but do so as fast as possible and minimize waste.

Lou

 

[FEENIX]

I'd love some even though I don't know what it is. I am sure that if you prepared it it will be delicious

 

[asd9055]

Sounds good. Some day maybe

 

[del2les]

One of the best examples, other than handguns, to show the myth of "minimum energy" is the centuries old usage of BP muzzle loaders and their RB loads. Countless game animals have been taken with 36, 40, 44, 45, 50 caliber RB's that impact at rather short ranges with much less than 1,000ft/lbs. Many of these loads do not even have 1,000ft/lbs at the muzzle, and some of those have killed countless elk, buffalo, etc.

 

[Mike D Texas]

I put virtually ZERO thought into impact energy. Impact velocity sufficient to provide proper bullet upset is what I consider.

I've not seen a single bullet manufacturer say their recommended minimum energy, but they all lost minimum impact velocity.

 

[6.5x300 WBY]

I think energy is way overrated. Velocity at impact is what matters for proper bullet expansion. Bullets expanding with velocity penetrate into the vital cavity causing disruption of vitals and ultimately death.

Spot on.

The 1500/1000 Energy required will never die unfortunately. As most know its a falacy the has been debunked countless times over.
Any mass that has velocity departs Energy, its a by product that can't be denied.
Shoot you can die by wind if going fast enough I bet.
People have their own ideas what it takes to do the required job. Let's just hope it's adequate for the job at hand.

Me personally, I want my projectile to be in the window of operational parameters ["AT IMPACT"]. faster is always cooler and imparts more dramatic effect.

More Popcorn FENIX. pass it along

 

[Taj]

KE is a controversial issue; many here, including bullet makers, are not too keen on it. See similar threads below. Like it or not, the law of physics is there to be appreciated, not ignored.



"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.

KE is really just a by-product of velocity and bullet weight. Temporary cavitation does play a role in creating hypovolemic shock, especially at rifle velocities due to tissue stretch, however is not the mechanism we rely on for putting a target down. Disregarding a CNS shot or major/massive bone damage, bullet placement and penetration to blood carrying organs is what creates hypovolmia/blood / blood pressure loss. To get that penetration we need good bullet design and construction. Higher velocities do generate more energy but bullet design, construction and weight are bigger factors in generating penetration than velocity.