What is the max range of my elk hunting load?

[Jordan Smith]

I hear what you're saying but actually, it does have SOMETHING to do with energy. ALL of the energy is expended INSIDE the animal and not waisted flying thru the air on the opposite side.

Sorry, I was referring to energy as it pertains to causing a shock wave in tissue, which is what many people equate the witnessed damage to. Energy is important, albeit a poor indicator to use when comparing bullet effectiveness, but not because it generates a tissue-destroying shock wave.

This is also assuming both bullets stay inside the animal, which is common with the VLD, and happens on occasion with the AB. Energy is absolutely vital, since it enables all bullets to do everything that they do. BUT, it's not a good indicator of bullet effectiveness, since the energy that a bullet carries is only partially transferred to other forms that actually cause damage and death. Much of its kinetic energy is lost to heat, wind resistance, penetrating thick hide and hair, bullet deformation, etc.

I do agree that fragmentation, as long as it occurs inside the vitals, has the greatest affect. I would also say that hydrostatic shock in the gut can not be compared to the same in the heart/lung area. I would contest the idea that hydrostatic shock is not, at times, a large contributing factor. Many people have died by a baseball, or the like, striking a person in the chest which causes the heart to stop. How much more likely is it to happen with 3000-4000 ft. lbs. of energy whether it is caused hyrostatically or via some other transfer?.......Rich

You're referring to the heart stopping because of a direct impact to the heart, which affects the rhythmic nodes inside the heart when the muscle tissue is impacted. That's not the same as a shock wave going through the animal, which has a very minimal effect compared to a direct impact to the chest, right at the heart area, from a baseball bat. Many heart-shot animals have stood there momentarily after the impact, as if nothing had happened. Hit the animal with a baseball bat in the chest, and it'll likely fall over, or at least be pushed backward significantly.

 

[elkaholic]

Sorry, I was referring to energy as it pertains to causing a shock wave in tissue, which is what many people equate the witnessed damage to. Energy is important, albeit a poor indicator to use when comparing bullet effectiveness, but not because it generates a tissue-destroying shock wave.

This is also assuming both bullets stay inside the animal, which is common with the VLD, and happens on occasion with the AB. Energy is absolutely vital, since it enables all bullets to do everything that they do. BUT, it's not a good indicator of bullet effectiveness, since the energy that a bullet carries is only partially transferred to other forms that actually cause damage and death. Much of its kinetic energy is lost to heat, wind resistance, penetrating thick hide and hair, bullet deformation, etc.



You're referring to the heart stopping because of a direct impact to the heart, which affects the rhythmic nodes inside the heart when the muscle tissue is impacted. That's not the same as a shock wave going through the animal, which has a very minimal effect compared to a direct impact to the chest, right at the heart area, from a baseball bat. Many heart-shot animals have stood there momentarily after the impact, as if nothing had happened. Hit the animal with a baseball bat in the chest, and it'll likely fall over, or at least be pushed backward significantly.

As far as I know, the baseballs/bats, never entered the chest cavity but struck in the immediate are........I rest my case.......Rich

 

[Jordan Smith]

As far as I know, the baseballs/bats, never entered the chest cavity but struck in the immediate are........I rest my case.......Rich

If a bat hits the ribcage over the heart, that will indirectly hit the heart, as the ribcage compresses the pericardium, which contacts the heart. A bat hitting the chest also imparts a LOT more shock than does a bullet penetrating through the chest cavity. As I said, a bullet doesn't transfer enough energy to push a deer backward, yet a baseball bat would likely knock it over or move it backward a bunch.

I'm not saying that shock waves have zero effect when a bullet, or other object, impacts the chest cavity of an animal. What I AM saying, is that it's not a major player in the destruction of tissue, and the death of big-game animals, as is tissue evisceration and crushing from direct bullet, shrapnel, and secondary projectile contact.

 

[T3-OleMan]

Dang......now I got HEADACHE # 338!!!!!

 

[elkaholic]

Dang......now I got HEADACHE # 338!!!!!

I'm geetin' one in BOTH ends.......Rich

 

[Jordan Smith]

I'm geetin' one in BOTH ends.......Rich

LOL, I've just got one in the other end.

I'm thinking I could better use my time right now by going out and welding my trailer, rather than trying to convince you fellas that bullets punching a hole in vitals is what kills, not a much-romanticized shock wave

 

[elkaholic]

LOL, I've just got one in the other end.

I'm thinking I could better use my time right now by going out and welding my trailer, rather than trying to convince you fellas that bullets punching a hole in vitals is what kills, not a much-romanticized shock wave

I'm thinking you're right!

 

[WildRose]

This. The "same effect" discussed here does take place, just on a lesser scale dependent on the mass and velocity for the fmj due to the fact that it doesn't expand.

Yep. Expanding bullets essentially magnify the amount of energy a bullet can impart on it's target.

The greater the energy imparted on the target, the more leeway you have with bullet placement. A low velocity or non expanding bullet will have to be more carefully placed than the high velocity rapidly expanding bullet in order to gurantee a clean kill.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

That's exactly what I was trying to get across in my previous post.

 

[WildRose]

Well Judas Jenny, LOL! No wonder those "rockchucks" were flying to pieces if that's what was being used. It sounds like what was just stated is the crux of the matter and basically what I stated. I was talking about using a similar caliber round of what would normally be used to shoot at a certain sized target (say a 30-06 at a deer as compared to a 50BMG). Using what was stated regarding the video for that size target would certainly not equate to what I mentioned.

A 30-06 at the muzzle doesnt' have as much energy reguardless of the the type of bullet used as the 50 bmg does at 1,000yds.

Mass + Velocity+ type of bullet determine how much energy will be delivered to the target.

If you have enough mass and velocity, bullet expansion is a very minor factor. If you have a slower, lower mass bullet, then you need considerable expansion to impart the desired amount of energy to the target.

In the standard calibers we typicall shoot as "hunting rounds" we lack the mass for great devastation on large game with non expanding bullets. However if you move up to the ultra and super magnums you can get devastating damage with limited expansion even out to 1,000yds.

This is why bullet selection becomes a critical factor and why we choose different bullets for long range and extreme long range shooting than we do for shots at 600yds or less.

 

[WildRose]

Sure you did.

Perhaps you should try a visit to webster's online dictionary.

Effect, and result are not synonymous.

 

[WildRose]

There's a big difference between hitting the hard, thick bone structure of a human head, and putting a bullet through soft tissue and expecting the shock wave to cause the body to explode.

Those were not head shots in the video.

Put enough energy through a soft body and it explodes. Try shooting prairie dogs at sub 200yd ranges with .223 FMJ's sometime.

I get the same effect on coyotes with the 7mm STW's out to about 500yds with any bullet I choose.

It's all about the amount of energy your bullet delivers to the target. With enough velocity and mass expansion is irrelevant.

 

[WildRose]

What causes tissue damage and death is a bullet that physically displaces tissue. Shock waves don't happen nearly as dramatically in the body of a large animal, as they do in a homogeneous fluid like water. The reason for this is because homogeneous substances, whether water or steel, exhibit high intermolecular forces, in which each molecule is "connected" to other surrounding molecules. When one moves, the others that are connected to it move. This is not the case in the heterogeneous environment of an animal body. At least not nearly to the same degree.

What kills animals is a bullet that displaces tissue. Whether the bullet fragments, violently expands, or is simply of a design to displace matter (flat point, wadcutter, etc). The temporary wound channel that a shock wave induces does not often kill large animals, although on occasion the electrical current passed through the CNS is overloaded, and the brain shorts out, but this is extremely rare. Remember, we're talking large animals, here, not varmints. Varmints are so dramatic when hit with CF rifles because of a massive impulse relative to the body size of the animals. This is not the case with large animals like humans and deer, unless we're using a 20mm.

Anybody who claims vehemently that hydrodynamic shock (or hyperstatic shock, lol) is what kills big game, clearly has never shot a deer through the lungs with a .50BMG, or had a hunting bullet fail to expand on a large game animal's chest cavity. The results are underwhelming, regardless of the 15,000 ft-lbs of muzzle energy that the .50BMG generates.

It's simple- put a hole through the vitals with a bullet that displaces tissue via point design or expansion, and you'll have a dead animal in short order. A common example to show that shock waves do not cause death nearly as much as people think they do, is putting a bullet through the guts. The guts should be a GREAT medium for a shock wave to show its effects, since it is a sack that is largely made up of water and densely packed, liquefied material. But go ahead and put a bullet through the guts, and you'll be in for a long and tiring day. Regardless of how much energy your shoulder-fired rifle generates, if you put a FMJ through the guts, you'll have a frustrating tracking job on your hands.

You continue to embarrass yourself. Give up while you are behind.

Ballistic gel by design mimics body tissue so that we can see how a given bullet/load will react on a living target.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYSGuiko6Gg]50 BMG vs Ballistic Gel - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAFY3Lfp1qk&feature=related]50 Cal bullet vs 2 blocks of ballistics gel - YouTube[/ame]

Watch and learn.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Wow. Your belligerent attitude surprises me. Honestly, it's not worth my time to argue with you anymore, bud. Sorry to disappoint.