Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
How Much energy is too little?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hugnot" data-source="post: 3070431" data-attributes="member: 115658"><p>If the deers & elks had steel armor plate I would go for kinetic energy, like E = 1/2 M V^2, E as foot pounds. Velocity is the big player as velocity is squared in the calculation. Many clubs don't like zippy high velocity rounds as they are steel target destructive. Some war weapons had crazy high MV's over 5,000 fps for use against armor. The olde .220 Swift 48 grain load @ over 4,000 fps had a good rep. as destructive blaster.</p><p></p><p>My thinking is penetration to destroy vital organs is more important for the deers & elks, like a diagonal hit requiring up to 3 feet of penetration to destroy a vital organ or support structure (bone). An argument against this is "hydrostatic" shock.</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock[/URL]</p><p></p><p>and</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3051.pdf[/URL]</p><p></p><p>quotation</p><p>" This paper reviews the scientific support for a ballistic pressure wave radiating outward from a penetrating projectile and causing injury and incapacitation. This phenomenon is known colloquially as "hydrostatic shock." The idea apparently originates with Col. Frank Chamberlin, a World War II trauma surgeon and wound ballistics researcher. The paper reviews claims that hydrostatic shock is a myth and considers supporting evidence through parallels with blast, describing the physics of the pressure wave, evidence for remote cerebral effects, and remote effects in the spine and other internal organs. Finally, the review considers the levels of energy transfer required for the phenomenon to be readily observed."</p><p></p><p>Cavitation effects of high velocity impact penetrations also need to be considered.</p><p></p><p>I don't shoot deers or elks but if I had to kill one with one of my small caliber zippy rifles I would go for a solid copper bullet that would penetrate some 3 feet of animal for the likely probability of a less than ideal broadside shot. I might be able to kill about 50 or more pop can size rodents if they lined up single file with a 95 grain Barnes solid copper bullet at 3,000 fps MV.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hugnot, post: 3070431, member: 115658"] If the deers & elks had steel armor plate I would go for kinetic energy, like E = 1/2 M V^2, E as foot pounds. Velocity is the big player as velocity is squared in the calculation. Many clubs don't like zippy high velocity rounds as they are steel target destructive. Some war weapons had crazy high MV's over 5,000 fps for use against armor. The olde .220 Swift 48 grain load @ over 4,000 fps had a good rep. as destructive blaster. My thinking is penetration to destroy vital organs is more important for the deers & elks, like a diagonal hit requiring up to 3 feet of penetration to destroy a vital organ or support structure (bone). An argument against this is "hydrostatic" shock. [URL unfurl="true"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock[/URL] and [URL unfurl="true"]https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3051.pdf[/URL] quotation " This paper reviews the scientific support for a ballistic pressure wave radiating outward from a penetrating projectile and causing injury and incapacitation. This phenomenon is known colloquially as "hydrostatic shock." The idea apparently originates with Col. Frank Chamberlin, a World War II trauma surgeon and wound ballistics researcher. The paper reviews claims that hydrostatic shock is a myth and considers supporting evidence through parallels with blast, describing the physics of the pressure wave, evidence for remote cerebral effects, and remote effects in the spine and other internal organs. Finally, the review considers the levels of energy transfer required for the phenomenon to be readily observed." Cavitation effects of high velocity impact penetrations also need to be considered. I don't shoot deers or elks but if I had to kill one with one of my small caliber zippy rifles I would go for a solid copper bullet that would penetrate some 3 feet of animal for the likely probability of a less than ideal broadside shot. I might be able to kill about 50 or more pop can size rodents if they lined up single file with a 95 grain Barnes solid copper bullet at 3,000 fps MV. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
How Much energy is too little?
Top