Sorry, but "Energy" didn't kill that deer.

[JR47]

Telling people that energy doesn't kill is like telling us that fuel doesn't propel your car. Neither is directly responsible, but both are crucial for successful operation.

It takes a certain amount of energy to even get the bullet out of the barrel. Without energy, provided by burning powder in an enclosed area, how can a bullet be delivered? By mail?

Put plainly, more energy, the harder something hits. The bullet may change shape, weight, or size, but, without sufficient ENERGY it cannot reach the target, penetrate the target, or expand in the target.

Parsing words may provide a great theoretical argument, but it wastes energy.

They were superb hunters, as opposed to animal shooters.

Not really. The difference lay in the fact that they possessed the skills to stalk close enough to use low-energy rounds effectively. Today, we can safely take shots at greater distances due to improved technology in bullet design, caliber design, and optics. Today's predators and game have both learned that humans are more dangerous today than the ones present in the 18th century. Hunting pressure is greater, and the tools more advanced.

 

[WestKentucky]

Realgun nailed another good point in that velocity and mass are not completely interchangeable. Whether you have a microscopic particulate traveling at the speed of light, or a massive boulder traveling at snails pace you can end up with the same numbers on energy, so there are limiting factors in both directions. That particulate would poke such a small hole you wouldn't ever feel it if it hit you square in the forehead. This happens to people every day with no ill effect. The boulder would simply push a person out of the way. Neither would do any real harm unless under the exact right circumstances. Likewise a person could generate massive energy numbers by swinging a sledgehammer at a deers ribcage or by firing a BB at warp 9 and although there will be damage neither will be a bangflop, nor would they even come close. Add this to steve2s comments in post 22 and were back to the heart of the discussion. It's the use of energy that kills and that is determined by projectile design. Different projectiles will work and accomplish the same goal in different ways but to truly be the best round for the job you have to know all of the factors ahead of time. There is a range in which people feel comfortable when it comes to hunting. Whether that comfort level comes from a 150 gr slug from a 30-30 or a 120 gr slug from a 243 we know it's enough, but some people want more. More than enough in my book is overkill and waste. Some people look at it as a bit of insurance. Either way you look at it you can easily see that this conversation is why we have so many arguments over best deer round and such.

 

[Elkins45]

I loaded some hunting ammo with 0 ft/lbs of kinetic energy but I'm not having much success with it. Every time I pull the trigger the bullet just stays in the case. It is very economical, though: the rounds can be used over and over again

I understand what the OP is trying to say, but the choice of post title forced me to comment. The destruction of tissue required for a bullet to kill a deer is a form of work, and kinetic energy is required to do work. The points of contention are around how energy is expended and the hypothetical mechanisms of incapacitation. Regardless of HOW a bullet kills a deer it uses BOTH kinetic energy AND momentum to accomplish the task. The formula for KE emphasizes speed and the formula for momentum emphasizes mass. I have killed deer with both low mass/high velocity cartridges (257 Wby) and high mass/low velocity guns (50 cal ML) and both have caused instant kills as well as deer that ran a few feet before dropping. It's a complex system that defies easy quantification. But it needs energy regardless.

If you want to kill a deer without kinetic energy then maybe you need to feed it poisoned corn.

 

[buck460XVR]

IMO, hunting deer with smaller bore magnum handguns like the .357 is like bowhunting. As with bowhunting, penetration with those calibers is everything and the more penetration, the more damage. While an expanding bullet can do more damge because of the increase in size of the wound channel, unlike SD ammo, little is gained if all the energy is expended by the expansion and the bullet penetrates little. An exit hole means not only a bigger blood trail to follow, but means the wound channel is longer. I have shot deer with several different handgun calibers. When processioning the deer, it is obvious that very little if any damage is caused by Hydrostatic shock. Exceptions are with the .460 and when using .357 and .44 mag outta a carbine. Thus velocity seems to be an important factor with hydrostatic shock. This conclusion is not obtained by math or equation, but by actual experience and witnessing damage by butchering the animal. Tissue damage by Hydrostatic shock using rifles calibers is always obvious, even from lowly 30-30 and .32 special carbine. This all comes down to knowing your hunting weapon and the damage that it is capable of. One also needs to realize that not all calibers kill effectively the same way. An obvious example is when expanding broadheads first hit the market years ago. They were not very effective until average bow had enough speed and produced enough energy to get deep penetration along with the expansion, otherwise standard fixed blade broadheads were still more effective. Know you equipment and know your limitations and proficiency. Put the appropriate projectile, whether it be bullet or arrow in the right place and you have done your job.

 

[Yarddog]

The deer down here in FL are not that big at all,, Never had one that did'nt drop in tracks with a neck shot JMO ; )
Y/D

 

[H&Hhunter]

Muzzle energy is simply one of the multiple mathematical variables used to predict the terminal performance of a given projectile. It is an indication of horse power if you will. But there are multiple variables as to how that horsepower is used and what the terminal effects will be depending on many of the variables already mentioned here.

There is no real reason to get all twitterpaited about muzzle energy on something like a deer. It starts to become a bit more relevant if your job is to stop a charging elephant however.

 

[CraigC]

It does not take into consideration bullet diameter or bullet construction, two very important aspects in the lethality of a particular cartridge.

And it places far too much importance on velocity, the most rapidly diminishing factor.

The problem with energy figures is that it tells us nothing meaningful. We know for a fact that big bore handgun bullets of proper construction traveling around 1200-1300fps kill with thunderous regularity. If a 430gr .475Linebaugh at 1200fps will produce a broad destructive path all the way through a Cape buffalo, yet produces an unimpressive 1300ft-lbs of kinetic energy, the same as a 55gr .224" at 3400fps. How is kinetic energy relevant? What does that "1300ft-lbs" tell us? Nothing.

It starts to become a bit more relevant if your job is to stop a charging elephant however.

Not really, it becomes even more meaningless the more bullet construction, weight and diameter become critical.

 

[Scimmia]

Not really, it becomes even more meaningless the more bullet construction, weight and diameter become critical.

So go ahead and throw those large bullets at that charging elephant. Not fire them, throw them with your hand.

I would much rather impart a large amount of kinetic energy on them with the rapid deflagration of smokeless powder.

 

[CraigC]

Typical.

 

[Elkins45]

The problem with energy figures is that it tells us nothing meaningful.

Don't presume to speak for "us" because it tells me plenty.

Just because you don't want to listen to the math doesn't mean it isn't useful. There's a reason I took those physics classes.

 

[CraigC]

Alright then, put your money where your mouth is. Based on the two examples in my post, what does it tell you?


I've been "listening to the math" for a long time. It doesn't tell US what we need to know. Hence the argument. You guys that believe in energy seem to want to assume that those who do not do so because we're too dumb to understand the math. Actually quite the contrary, we've been around the block enough to know that there is more to it than numbers printed in the back of Shooter's Bible.

 

[ZeroJunk]

I'm 99% sure that 37 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[H&Hhunter]

Not really, it becomes even more meaningless the more bullet construction, weight and diameter become critical.

Chicken or the egg here? A bullet weight of approximately 400 grs and a bullet of a solid construction which has the capability to reliably penetrate to the brain of a bull elephant from a frontal brain shot needs to be propelled at a velocity which will mathematically calculate to about 4,000 Ftlbs muzzle energy and be of a bore diameter of close to .40 caliber. And one that will reliably turn a charging elephant even if you don't hit the brain but produces enough momentum and felt impact that the bull doesn't want to play the charge game anymore tends to be in the 500 gr + weight be of close to .50 caliber or greater and be launched at a velocity that will produce over 5,000 ftlbs muzzle energy. The smallest round which is considered reliable elephant turning medicine is the .500 NE, this from experienced professional hunters who specialize in elephant.

So are those M.E. numbers relevant? Yes and no 5,000+ ft lbs by itself means nothing you could propel a 140 Gr 7MM ballistic tip at a velocity which could produce 5,000ftlbs. It means nothing in our above example. It becomes relevant however when used in conjunction with the right combination of weight, diameter and velocity of the projectile. So as I mentioned prior muzzle energy is simply a mathematical calculation unless it is used in the proper context.

Your example above of a .475 Linebaugh will NOT reliably get to the brain on a bull elephant on a frontal shot. Take that same diameter bullet @ 500 grs assuming proper solid construction and launch it from a .470 NE or a .475 No2 @ 2150 FPS and it will reliably do the job. So once again taking all the variables into account, bullet construction, diameter, weight and velocity the resulting ME now becomes relevant.

 

[Elkins45]

Alright then, put your money where your mouth is. Based on the two examples in my post, what does it tell you?

Assuming we are using them on game it tells me that the 22 bullet needs to be fairly strongly constructed in order to keep from blowing up at the surface. It also tells me the big revolver bullet can be a bit soft because the work is being spread out over a much larger amount of matter.

I've been "listening to the math" for a long time. It doesn't tell US what we need to know. Hence the argument. You guys that believe in energy seem to want to assume that those who do not do so because we're too dumb to understand the math.

I don't make that assumption at all. I didn't say you can't understand. I said you weren't listening. I'm not going to criticize you if you don't want to know KE figures, but I would appreciate the same courtesy if I do.

 

[H&Hhunter]

Moderator hat on here for second.

Lets keep the emotion out of it guys. There is no reason to get all fired up over this stuff.

 

[USSR]

Okay, back to the original scenario I posed in the OP: "the bullet stopped inside the deer, so all the energy was used", which have heard so many times. The question for you hunters who use mathematical equations to kill game is: If two bullets are fired at deer and both have a energy level of 575 ft.lbs, and one bullet stops inside the animal and therefor "all the energy was used", and the second bullet completely penetrates the deer, how much energy was "wasted" by the bullet that fully penetrated? If you believe that somehow this mythical energy number is the killer, which is nothing more than a mathematical calculation, then surely there must be a mathematical calculation to determine the amount of energy used or wasted in a complete penetration shot.

Don

 

[CraigC]

Your example above of a .475 Linebaugh will NOT reliably get to the brain on a bull elephant on a frontal shot.

What is this conclusion based on?

Assuming we are using them on game it tells me that the 22 bullet needs to be fairly strongly constructed in order to keep from blowing up at the surface. It also tells me the big revolver bullet can be a bit soft because the work is being spread out over a much larger amount of matter.

Which means, what, exactly?

 

[H&Hhunter]

Okay this thing has run it's course and is now backtracking.