More Thoughts on Energy

Originally Posted by duffy4

Depends on who you are reading.

I say that it is over simplifying to say "its holes that kill not energy"

I believe that a bullet with lots of energy and one designed to expand and impart that energy to the tissue in the animal, will make a more "devastating"
wound (destruction of tissue) that will cause death quicker. Than simply a "hole".

example: a .22 lr makes a hole in a ground squirrel.
a .22/250 makes a messy hole in the universe where once a ground squirrel stood.

Both are still just tissue damage but with the high velocity 22-250, the temporary wound channel is too large to be contained by the squiirels tiny body so it radiated out through the holes caused by the bullet. It can simply be explained by hydrodynamic pulse caused by the projectile.

If it was as simple as energy, then highly frangible varmint bullets would be the best choice for big game....they aren't despite imparting all their energy. Or then the .25-06 would be a great choice for close quarter grizzly protection.

Hit that same ground squirrel with a bullet proportial to the size of a .30 in a moose and hydrodynamic pulse would be less spectacular. The.22 bullet displaces a lot of tissue and water in a tiny body, especially when delivered at high speed.

[super7mag]

[QUOTE=sheephunter;597578]Both are still just tissue damage but with the high velocity 22-250, the temporary wound channel is too large to be contained by the squiirels tiny body so it radiated out through the holes caused by the bullet. It can simply be explained by hydrodynamic pulse caused by the projectile.

Thankyou thankyou very much, now elivs has left the building.

[duffy4]

Yes the "temporary wound channel" is not at all temporary in the ground squirrel. And the wound channel in a larger animal is not so visible (from the outside) but also not temporary.

"If it was as simple as energy,"

Not sure what you mean by this sheep???

Is anyone saying that animals are simply killed by energy? I certainly have not said that.

I am saying that a "simple hole" through a deers lungs will cause it to die.
And a "very destructive, devastating hole" caused by a high velocity bullet rapidly expanding and shedding energy as it passes through the lungs of a deer, will kill it quicker (as a rule). If the bullet passes through to leave a good blood trail so much the better.

And Penetration into the vitals is also important, thats why a varmint bullet usually does not make a great deer killing bullet. (but then you knew that)

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by duffy4

I say that it is over simplifying to say "its holes that kill not energy"

But the opposite "it's energy that kills not holes" is completely false.

K.I.S.S.

[switchsl]

There are articles and studies that prove remote wounding, nerves, hemorage in major veins and arteries. Has anybody researched enough to come across the specifics of how severe the damage is? I cant find it. I Made my decision as to whats what, but to further understand I would like to know the extend of brain hemorage, the seperation or otherwise of nerve tissue, and the effect documented by profesional autopsy so we can all look at the possible effects of said damage. Its been said it is perminant, and not. That it can and can not kill, or speed up a kill due to added trauma or just stun the animal to have the apperance of death while it bleads out unconcious. This I think would settle alot of the arguments, rather than opinion on the issue. For instance I did find explination of the amount of energy delivered as fas as .5 meters beyond the wound, observed hemorage in specific parts of the brain, these parts of the brain certianly are more involved in recovery to a wounded anything than just the ability to disorientate, but nothing to say if it was extensive enough to kill on a long or short term basis.
We have a guy here who studies us at a cellular level, another who is well versed in physics, again more who can explain on countless kills their experience, and Im sure some where a paramedic or the like. With this diverse skill set and co operation, it can all be put to gether with a very educated guess as to what is really going on in the body of that animal, other than there is a shock wave or pulse, there is damage or discombobulation, it is or isnt permanent or fatal. Dont want to invade, but a slight shift in topic maybe benificial... the earlier discoveries and debate seem to have been resolved.

[270WIN]

This an interesting thread. It prompted me to get out my well worn copy of Jack O'Connor's "The Rifle Book". Chapter XXIII "Killing Power and the Placement of Shots" contains a discussion of this topic. Jack believed that a rifle kills by two means. The first is "by having the life processes interferred with". An example of this is a shot to the brain. Even a very small, low energy calibre, for example a .22, will accomplish this. The second is by one of the varieties of shock. (He doesn't use the term "shock wave" but he certainly does use the word "shock"). He talks about two kinds of shock; surgical shock and hydraulic shock. According to him, surgical shock causes tissue damage and if that tissue damage is great enough the animal will die even if the tissue is located a long way from a vital area. He also believed that shock was probably transmitted to the brain via the blood vessels in what he called hydraulic shock and that this sudden blow to the brain would cause death.

Jack's book was written in 1949 and I suspect that some new theories on killing power have evolved since then. Be that as it may, Jack O'Connor killed a lot of animals with a rifle and is still respected as one of the most knowledgable riflemen of all time.

[crawfy]

This is like the old question which came first the chicken or the egg? very good thread though have learned alot here. Sheep have you gone through a key board or two on this thread.

[Duck Buster 1187]

Wow...... TJ must really be having a time getting good research for his next article.

[ishootbambi]

i was thinking that from about the beginning of this second thread. i fully expect to see an article in the next few months....AO...outdoor edge, or the like.

[6.5x47 lapua]

i believe everybody should read po ackleys volume one.the chapter is called killing power.this subject has been studied and discussed forever.

[Predator]

Originally Posted by crawfy

This is like the old question which came first the chicken or the egg? very good thread though have learned alot here. Sheep have you gone through a key board or two on this thread.

I think that question has been answered now.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by noneck180

What are you getting at...don't understand these beat around the bush comments..
My testing is on my wall..I can hit what I want when I want., the "real world" crap is getting old..yeah Bergers kill..and damb fast.

There was no beating around the bush at all with my post, and I could care less of a person uses a berger, Seirra, or whatever.
I said nothing about Bergers and my post was not directed at you.
I just have better things to do that to spend hours of my time debating stuff that will not matter once the game is sighted.
the differences in bullets is not a "show stopper " as much as other things in the equation of killing an animal.
Cat

[Traps]

Originally Posted by duffy4

I am saying that a "simple hole" through a deers lungs will cause it to die.
And a "very destructive, devastating hole" caused by a high velocity bullet rapidly expanding and shedding energy as it passes through the lungs of a deer, will kill it quicker (as a rule). If the bullet passes through to leave a good blood trail so much the better.

And Penetration into the vitals is also important, thats why a varmint bullet usually does not make a great deer killing bullet. (but then you knew that)

If you have two bullets hit directly in the middle of the lungs, one animal that gets the rapidly expanding shot will run like MK2570 says 100 yards. Then you take a slow moving shot same place and the animal walks off and dies in 50 yards. The rapidly expanding bullet causes a lot of pain whereas the slow moving feels like a pin *****. So the deer runs twice as fast with a lot of pain and half as fast as with a little pain but in the end they both die in the same amount of time, distance the only difference.

This parallet goes out the window when you see a deer go down in a heap from a 300 WSM in the boiler room. It again goes out the window when you take a shoulder shot with a slow moving high momentum bullet. It again goes out the window with a grazing lung shot that rapidly expands and does enough damage to kill the animal as long as it penetrated enough. Every choice has its tradeoffs and it depends on what kind of hunter you are, what kind of ethical shots you choose to take and are capable of.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by custom gunworx

i believe everybody should read po ackleys volume one.the chapter is called killing power.this subject has been studied and discussed forever.

I don't have Ackley's book (although I think I might like to lay my hands on a copy sometime) but, from what I can gather, he was an advocate of fast moving, relatively lightweight projectiles as opposed to the "big bullet, big hole" theory and that he believed that the energy transferred from the bullet, while it is still moving inside an animal, to the surrounding organs and tissues to be a major component of killing power. This sounds a lot like what Jack O' Connor said except that I have the feeling that Ackley took it to a higher level. Something I read about him said that he believed that a bullet travelling at 4000 fps or more added an additional dimension to the energy transfer (or whatever you may want to call it) and that this additional dimension could not be attained at velocities under 4000 fps.

Have I got this more or less correct, gunworx? If not, maybe you could give us a brief summary of what he did have to say.

Thanks.

[Drop_Tine]

Two Words " Shot Placement"

[6.5x47 lapua]

Originally Posted by 270WIN

I don't have Ackley's book (although I think I might like to lay my hands on a copy sometime) but, from what I can gather, he was an advocate of fast moving, relatively lightweight projectiles as opposed to the "big bullet, big hole" theory and that he believed that the energy transferred from the bullet, while it is still moving inside an animal, to the surrounding organs and tissues to be a major component of killing power. This sounds a lot like what Jack O' Connor said except that I have the feeling that Ackley took it to a higher level. Something I read about him said that he believed that a bullet travelling at 4000 fps or more added an additional dimension to the energy transfer (or whatever you may want to call it) and that this additional dimension could not be attained at velocities under 4000 fps.

Have I got this more or less correct, gunworx? If not, maybe you could give us a brief summary of what he did have to say.

Thanks.

it wasnt just him.guys like paul von rosenberg who was a ballistics engineer as well as a worldly hunter stated there are too many variables in assesing what makes a game shot a killing one.an identical wound on two identical animals usually results in quite a variation in killing effect.moreover the variables from shot to shot and from animal to animal are so great that it would take a lifetime of scientific observation to cover all of them and base definite conclusions.

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

i was thinking that from about the beginning of this second thread. i fully expect to see an article in the next few months....AO...outdoor edge, or the like.

Possibly

An interesting topic with lots of different thoughts. Despite the attempts of a couple posters to derail things, it's nice to see a civil discussion this time. Lots to be learned for sure.

[ishootbambi]

i stand corrected in this one. unlike the last thread there has been some questions asked and answers provided for those that missed it first time around. im not sure there has been anything new added, just new guys discussing it. and yes it is nice to see a civilized chat going on.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Possibly

An interesting topic with lots of different thoughts. Despite the attempts of a couple posters to derail things, it's nice to see a civil discussion this time. Lots to be learned for sure.

I agree. Thanks for starting it.

[elkhunter11]

After hunting for over 35 years,having witnessed many animals killed and their reactions to the shots,I came to the conclusion that the larger the permanent wound channel through the vitals,the quicker the animal died.I could care less how much of a factor that energy transfer is,as long as the bullet is placed in the vitals,it makes a large permanent wound channel,and the animal dies quickly.

[leo]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

After hunting for over 35 years,having witnessed many animals killed and their reactions to the shots,I came to the conclusion that the larger the permanent wound channel through the vitals,the quicker the animal died.I could care less how much of a factor that energy transfer is,as long as the bullet is placed in the vitals,it makes a large permanent wound channel,and the animal dies quickly.

Sounds like an endorsement for the old 45-70 ?

[elkhunter11]

Sounds like an endorsement for the old 45-70 ?

Not an endorsement for any specific cartridge,a smaller diameter expanding bullet at higher velocity may cause a larger permanent wound channel than a larger diameter slower moving bullet.Bullet construction,and velocity are huge factors when it comes to the size of the permanent wound channel.

[leo]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Not an endorsement for any specific cartridge,a smaller diameter expanding bullet at higher velocity may cause a larger permanent wound channel than a larger diameter slower moving bullet.Bullet construction,and velocity are huge factors when it comes to the size of the permanent wound channel.

May cause is the key word . Would also depend on shot placement and any resistance the bullet encounters which varies shot to shot.

[elkhunter11]

May cause is the key word . Would also depend on shot placement and any resistance the bullet encounters which varies shot to shot.

True,but the largest permanent wound channels that I have personally witnessed were caused by the 180gr TSX launched at 3380fps out of my 300RUM.The one bullet that I did recover expanded to .800".A .45-70 bullet would have to expand to almost double it's diameter to be that large,and it has far less velocity driving it through the carcass.
It doesn't matter what combination of bullet diameter,bullet construction,and velocity you use to create the wound channel,as long as you create a large permanent wound channel.

[6.5x47 lapua]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Not an endorsement for any specific cartridge,a smaller diameter expanding bullet at higher velocity may cause a larger permanent wound channel than a larger diameter slower moving bullet.Bullet construction,and velocity are huge factors when it comes to the size of the permanent wound channel.

now you are on to something.von rosenberg said there are three things in the bullets ability to cause a large and fatal wound.its striking energy,its expansion and or partial disintegration,and its penetration.this is in direct relation to bullet velocity.a conventional jacketed expanding bullet fired into a given mass and consistency of skin bone and fat has an optimum velocity for maximum penetration.velocities either less or greater give less penetration.

[leo]

Originally Posted by custom gunworx

now you are on to something.von rosenberg said there are three things in the bullets ability to cause a large and fatal wound.its striking energy,its expansion and or partial disintegration,and its penetration.this is in direct relation to bullet velocity.a conventional jacketed expanding bullet fired into a given mass and consistency of skin bone and fat has an optimum velocity for maximum penetration.velocities either less or greater give less penetration.

There again , I believe the resistance the bullet encounters may cause the energy transfer to trickle off vs shed quickly . Eg. with EH11's 300rum , would there have been a more effiecient energy transfer had the bullet passed completely through the animal ? The mass and velocity were constant, therefore the resistance the projectile encountered dictated the amount of energy transfered . Is there any merit to that or am I off my rocker?

[Traps]

Originally Posted by custom gunworx

now you are on to something.von rosenberg said there are three things in the bullets ability to cause a large and fatal wound.its striking energy,its expansion and or partial disintegration,and its penetration.this is in direct relation to bullet velocity.a conventional jacketed expanding bullet fired into a given mass and consistency of skin bone and fat has an optimum velocity for maximum penetration.velocities either less or greater give less penetration.

The optimum velocity for maximum penetration is the minimum velocity required to start expanding the bullet usually around 1800-2000 fps. Once you start expanding the nose of the bullet resistance goes up and penetration goes down.

What would be ideal is to have the bullet expand and penetrate just so that it penetrates through the offhide side.

Originally Posted by leo

There again , I believe the resistance the bullet encounters may cause the energy transfer to trickle off vs shed quickly . Eg. with EH11's 300rum , would there have been a more effiecient energy transfer had the bullet passed completely through the animal ? The mass and velocity were constant, therefore the resistance the projectile encountered dictated the amount of energy transfered . Is there any merit to that or am I off my rocker?

I think you need to understand energy transfers first.... then where is the energy transfered to and what form does is take after the transfer? All energy ultimately becomes heat. Since a bullet only contains kenetic energy while it's moving, unless it puts something else in motion or it turns to heat, there is really nothing else that can happen. This is one of the myths of energy dump and its effect.

[Traps]

Originally Posted by leo

There again , I believe the resistance the bullet encounters may cause the energy transfer to trickle off vs shed quickly . Eg. with EH11's 300rum , would there have been a more effiecient energy transfer had the bullet passed completely through the animal ? The mass and velocity were constant, therefore the resistance the projectile encountered dictated the amount of energy transfered . Is there any merit to that or am I off my rocker?

Velocity is what affects the rate of energy transfer, higher velocity means faster expansion and its non-linear in nature. Velocity will always decrease and depending on bullet construction and speed mass may also decrease. Your entirely right about the resistance dictating energy transfer but there is also something else going on here, not sure what its called but it would be like a sky diver hitting water, they are essentially hitting a solid at that speed.

The most efficient transfer of energy would be if the bullet didn't make it out the other side.

Originally Posted by Traps

Velocity is what affects the rate of energy transfer, higher velocity means faster expansion and its non-linear in nature. Velocity will always decrease and depending on bullet construction and speed mass may also decrease. Your entirely right about the resistance dictating energy transfer but there is also something else going on here, not sure what its called but it would be like a sky diver hitting water, they are essentially hitting a solid at that speed.

The most efficient transfer of energy would be if the bullet didn't make it out the other side.

Yes and no.....energy is transfered through friction regardless of the medium its moving through (other than a perfect vacuum) so much energy is already transfered long before the bullet reaches the target. If you are trying to say that a bullet that doesn't pass through is more deadly because of an energy transfer...it's a common myth but a myth none-the-less. All that energy can do is help the bullet make a big hole and often, that hole is bigger as a result of velocity, depending on the bullet. In some cases, the best performance is a bullet that zips right through at high velocity, creating a massive permanent and temporary wound channel. The temporary wound channel is usually proportional to speed so if energy really matters, with some bullets, speed and penetration actually transfers that energy better. The TSX is a pretty classic example of that.

Unfortunately, many of the thoughts on bullets and energy predate modern bullet designs. While likely applicable at the time, technology has rendered many of them obsolete. Taylor's TKO theory is a classic example of that.