It ain't the truth. You only repeated the conventional "wisdom" about energy that is in serious need of an enema. It's okay, a lot of folks still believe the old wives tale, no matter how much contradictory evidence is flung at them.Is there a point? I have already told you the truth. Whatever I say you will have a contrary remark. You are funny but not that funny.
I think the reason people reply "Lol" to you is that you are unnecessarily argumentative, bordering on insulting. You also make statements that are plainly untrue, because you have wildly overstated your case, and then you make statements that contradict your previous pronouncements and don't even realize. All the while giving off an air of superiority. You have stated that energy is a useless number. You then later stated that "There has to be enough velocity to get the job done but there also has to be a properly shaped, properly constructed bullet of appropriate diameter and weight, specifically the balance of weight and diameter, i.e. sectional density." I agree with this statement entirely, but the bolded part contradicts your earlier statement. Why does there need to be enough velocity to get the job done? Well to turn this into actual physics, the bullet will have to do work as it plows through the animal. The ability to do work is, literally, energy. The bullet has energy because it has velocity. So your statement is that the bullet needs to have enough energy to get the job done. Yes, exactly. Energy is not useless, it is in fact very important.Not much on actual discussion, huh?
You then later stated that "There has to be enough velocity to get the job done but there also has to be a properly shaped, properly constructed bullet of appropriate diameter and weight, specifically the balance of weight and diameter, i.e. sectional density." I agree with this statement entirely, but the bolded part contradicts your earlier statement. Why does there need to be enough velocity to get the job done? Well to turn this into actual physics, the bullet will have to do work as it plows through the animal. The ability to do work is, literally, energy. The bullet has energy because it has velocity. So your statement is that the bullet needs to have enough energy to get the job done. Yes, exactly. Energy is not useless, it is in fact very important.
The problem with published energy numbers is twofold. First, they are often quoted as muzzle-energy which is only relevant if the animal is at the muzzle. What is relevant is the energy at impact. The second, and bigger problem, is no one really discusses or publishes data on how much energy does a given bullet need to harvest the animal (or fully penetrate).
I agree with you almost completely - you have to pick the bullet (size and construction) for the job and then go from there, not pick a cartridge based on published energy. But you have to pick a cartridge that will deliver that bullet at your expected distance with enough energy (velocity) for the bullet to do what it needs to do.
Like I said.It ain't the truth. You only repeated the conventional "wisdom" about energy that is in serious need of an enema. It's okay, a lot of folks still believe the old wives tale, no matter how much contradictory evidence is flung at them.
Upon what do you base this statement?No way in anything is the 44 Mag remotely as powerful as a 30-06.
No, I'm just arguing and I'm arguing about ballistics, while others, yourself included, want to make it personal. I have overstated nothing, i'm trying to make a point and if folks would actually take the time to understand my points, rather than just figure out how to confirm their own beliefs, we might get somewhere. I'm sorry though, I know the rifle forum is usually a safe space for energy believers.I think the reason people reply "Lol" to you is that you are unnecessarily argumentative, bordering on insulting. You also make statements that are plainly untrue, because you have wildly overstated your case, and then you make statements that contradict your previous pronouncements and don't even realize. All the while giving off an air of superiority. You have stated that energy is a useless number. You then later stated that "There has to be enough velocity to get the job done but there also has to be a properly shaped, properly constructed bullet of appropriate diameter and weight, specifically the balance of weight and diameter, i.e. sectional density." I agree with this statement entirely, but the bolded part contradicts your earlier statement. Why does there need to be enough velocity to get the job done? Well to turn this into actual physics, the bullet will have to do work as it plows through the animal. The ability to do work is, literally, energy. The bullet has energy because it has velocity. So your statement is that the bullet needs to have enough energy to get the job done. Yes, exactly. Energy is not useless, it is in fact very important.
The problem with published energy numbers is twofold. First, they are often quoted as muzzle-energy which is only relevant if the animal is at the muzzle. What is relevant is the energy at impact. The second, and bigger problem, is no one really discusses or publishes data on how much energy does a given bullet need to harvest the animal (or fully penetrate).
I agree with you almost completely - you have to pick the bullet (size and construction) for the job and then go from there, not pick a cartridge based on published energy. But you have to pick a cartridge that will deliver that bullet at your expected distance with enough energy (velocity) for the bullet to do what it needs to do.
And here's the problem with TKO. A major league baseball (2.9" diameter, 5 oz) thrown at 50 mph (even I can do that) has a TKO 66.45. That ain't going to kill even a whitetail deer, let alone a cape buffalo. Energy overstates the value of velocity and understates the value of mass and diamter. TKO is exactly the opposite.And herein lies the question and debate that has ensued, what is the correct relationship between velocity, mass, frontal area, sectional density to best predict animal expiration. We need to solve this, then we can move onto less contentious discussions whether or not to shoot the shoulder, slip it behind and through the lungs, high shoulder CNS, head shot, neck shot or heart shot.
Haha, half of that was to lighten the mood, but the first part is serious, I believe that energy numbers on cartridges fail to completely represent actual work done on the animal towards it's demise. There are really good examples that have been given comparing two projectiles, velocities and mass that seemingly on their face contradict the energy numbers as to what will work the best in a hunting scenario.
I guess I see it both ways, it's a good discussion and shows why there are those in the hunting and shooting worlds that have tried to come up with their own formula to "better" predict efficacy of a cartridge on game.
I find the difference between ft/lbs of energy and Taylor Knockout Factor interesting. No doubt TKO was formulated to try quantify/appreciate the benefits of larger bore effect on game. Given the example @CraigC posted previously between a 44mag and 30-06 it is interesting to see the discrepancy between ft/lbs and TKO.
44MAG, 300gr, 1,450fps
1,400 ft/lbs
27.34 TKO
30-06, 220gr, 2,400fps
2,813 ft/lbs
23.23 TKO
Which one is "more right?"
Obviously, efficacy of the above rounds are dependent on range to target as the 44MAG will start to bleed velocity and thus energy at a quicker rate than the 30-06. The above two ways of looking at efficacy of cartridges are propped up by their respective sides. Foot pounds serves the higher velocity, better bullet technology with expanding bullets, etc., whereas TKO serves the, "there's no replacement, for displacement" crowd of larger bores. And their respective formulas play to each of those beliefs.
And here's the problem with TKO. A major league baseball (2.9" diameter, 5 oz) thrown at 50 mph (even I can do that) has a TKO 66.45. That ain't going to kill even a whitetail deer, let alone a cape buffalo. Energy overstates the value of velocity and understates the value of mass and diamter. TKO is exactly the opposite.
You are correct, our little peeing match has gotten way off topic. To answer the OP's question, I guess it depends on a few factors because neither is clearly better than the other (see the ongoing debate above):What a mess, you guys arguing over pistol vs rifle and energy blah blah should just go start your own thread. This one’s a truck fire.
The only problem with TKO is people taking it out of its proper context, like you just did. TKO is for comparing big bores to each other. No more, no less. In that context, it's actually a useful number. Not for baseballs or smallbores.And here's the problem with TKO. A major league baseball (2.9" diameter, 5 oz) thrown at 50 mph (even I can do that) has a TKO 66.45. That ain't going to kill even a whitetail deer, let alone a cape buffalo. Energy overstates the value of velocity and understates the value of mass and diamter. TKO is exactly the opposite.
Alaska DNR tests confirm this conclusion. Physics and terminal ballistics have not changed since then. We all know that Craig is a contrarian that believes velocity and energy have no meaning. He believes a .22 LR and a .223 have the same power as well as .38 Special and .357 Magnum. I believe jmr40 is correct and is supported by real experts.
There is no well-defined distinction between combinations of weapon and ammunition that are adequate or inadequate for protection against bears. The final decision on adequacy must be made by each individual and should include consideration of weapon size and weight, recoil, and the person’s experience with firearms. Our data can, however, be used as a general guide to the effectiveness of the weapons and ammunition tested. A rifle in .375 H & H Magnum caliber in the hands of a person who can comfortably tolerate the recoil is a much better choice thana .30-06 or comparable caliber. A .30-06 with 220-gr bullets, however, might be a better choice for a person sensitive to recoil, who may shoot the lighter caliber weapons with more confidence and accuracy.
Based on our tests, four cartridge-bullet combinations appear superior for protection against bears:* .458 Winchester Magnum, 510-grsoft-point bullet. For a shooter who can handle the recoil of this cartridge, a bolt-action rifle in .458 Winchester Magnum is the surest weapon available.*
.375 H & H Magnum, 300-gr softpoint bullet. The recoil of a rifle in this caliber, although considerably less than that of the .458 Magnum, is still severe for many people. Our tests indicate that the 270-gr soft-point bullet in this caliber is only slightly less effective than the 300-gr bullet and has only slightly less recoil.*
.338 Winchester Magnum, 300-grbullet. This combination appears to be a good choice. Recoil is somewhat less than that of the .375 Magnum, and our tests indicated that effectiveness would not be much less than that of the .375Magnum. If the 300-gr bullet cannot be obtained, the 200-gr bullet should be used
.30-06, 220-gr bullet. Mild recoil, compared with that of the large- and medium-bore cartridges, even in alight weight rifle, makes this cartridge a strong contender for shooters who are sensitive to recoil. The .30-06 also has other advantages. It can be found in several rifle actions - bolt, pump(slide), semiautomatic - and can be obtained as, or customized into, a short, handy, lightweight weapon.
That's the only one I know of. Note it's dated 1983, older than I remember. I can't count the number of people who have read the following and argued that handguns are useless.This study??
That ranks the 7x57 175 grn load above the 300WM, 8mm Rem Mag, and 12GA slug IAW their testing protocols?
and also lists the top 10 cartridges they tested in order as as:
#1458WM
#2 460 Weatherby
#3 375 H&H
#4 338WM
#5 375H&H (different load)
#6 338WM (different load)
#7 338WM (different load)
#8 338WM (different load)
#9 338WM (different load)
#10 375H&H (different load)
The above is the only ballistic testing I could find linked to bear defense. IF you guys have another source, by all mean please post it.
Their summary is pretty good, but you'd have to read the entire report to get to that point:
That's the only one I know of. Note it's dated 1983, older than I remember. I can't count the number of people who have read the following and argued that handguns are useless.
"The superiority of the .44 Remington Magnum makes it the cartridge choice for a backup weapon. A revolver using this cartridge should not be considered a primary weapon for protection from bears."
It is interesting to note, however, that even the lowly 240gr SWAGED semi-wadcutter penetrated 11", while the .375H&H only went 14". The .444Marlin penetrated exactly the same but was rated much higher at #13. There's a .338 load that went 0.7" deeper than the .44 but was rated #7. This is a very outdated, highly flawed test but obviously some people still rely on it and even quote it as gospel. I guess it fits certain narratives.
We used ammunition manufactured by several companies, chosen solely on the basis of availability, and made no attempt to compare similar loads of different manufacturers. The ammunition and barrel length of the weapons tested are included in table 1 in the
How close to an angry Grizzly bear would you need to be to reliably kill one with your 44 mag ?To me, the greatest irony in this thread is jmr's signature.
"Most people don't really want the truth.
They just want constant reassurance that what they believe is the truth"
It's the truth and very insightful. The irony is in the source. People love to have things settled in their minds and most are very resistant to changing it. It's why this energy myth is so hard to bust, people are invested. Most of us grew up listening to the same rhetoric about energy and handguns vs rifles. I know I did. I came up believing a lot of crap I found later to be untrue, or at best misleading. You have to have an open mind and be open to changing it to make that realization. I was literally a child when I became interested in handgun hunting and started doing it. My family leased land for raising cattle and pork. As an 8yr old I, would go into the barn with a Crosman Python pellet pistol and shoot rats. Then I rigged up a scope and started hunting small game with it. At 16 I got a .44Mag Redhawk and it all went downhill from there. When you get into that aspect of things, you have to face this nonsense about energy head-on. Because as soon as you start reading JD Jones, Larry Kelly, Bob Milek, John Taffin, Elmer Keith, Ross Seyfried, etc., you quickly learn that the energy metric is all wrong. If all you ever hunt with are rifles, you can easily avoid confronting the myth. Many obviously do, for a very long time. It's difficult to change a person's mind when it's been made up for decades.
The last several big game animals I shot with a handgun were moving at 40-70yds. If you can hit a little crackhead blackbuck on the move through the brush at 70yds, you can hit a 1000lb bear or moose.How close to an angry Grizzly bear would you need to be to reliably kill one with your 44 mag ?
Same question for a Bull moose ..
Yes, that is the study referred to.This study??
That ranks the 7x57 175 grn load above the 300WM, 8mm Rem Mag, and 12GA slug IAW their testing protocols?
and also lists the top 10 cartridges they tested in order as as:
#1458WM
#2 460 Weatherby
#3 375 H&H
#4 338WM
#5 375H&H (different load)
#6 338WM (different load)
#7 338WM (different load)
#8 338WM (different load)
#9 338WM (different load)
#10 375H&H (different load)
The above is the only ballistic testing I could find linked to bear defense. IF you guys have another source, by all mean please post it.
Their summary is pretty good, but you'd have to read the entire report to get to that point: