Thread: A question for the doubters

Please read my post and the linked document regarding energy on page 1

My reference to energy was the dissipation of it. ie projectile fragmentation.

Originally Posted by Shearer

Not regularly, but it is one I consider when I have the opportunity. I feel it gives more leeway if the shot were to go higher than intended. Of course the animal has to be in the right position for it to effective. Aiming at the off shoulder of an animal quartering away seem to do this, as long as the projectile has the integrity to go all the way through and smash that shoulder joint, the animal will generally fall over and then die.

Il add that most people seem to aim too far back. Putting the projectile just on the forward edge of the shoulder/leg bone will Incapacitate the animal much quicker than the rear side of the leg.

Originally Posted by Eat Meater

I think you'll have trouble with an objective test because of lack of data. E.g. does anyone ever put up photos of deer they missed or had to track and finish? Not impugning the skill or honesty of regular posters there, just putting out a known unknown.
Once we had the miss/not-enough-gun-due to-bad-shot-placement data we'd then need the same data for another calibre that is a 'recognised' minimum, e.g. .243.
We can't get it, so my ignorant position is "in the hands of a proficient shooter with good shot placement, the .223 is fine, but not for occassional shooters."

The same can be said of any catridge. People shooting big cartridges losing animals always seem to go straight to it was a bad shot but small cartridges they go straight to its the catridge. In all honesty most failures are either bad shots or incorrect projectile and impact velocity matches. Everyone likes to say it will do the job but is not ideal comapred to day the bigger typical hunting rounds but it's undeniable fact most people in field conditions are better with a smaller rifle in field conditions given it increases forgiveness to the poor form 90% of us use. I'd argue a 10% increase in optimum hit rate is better than a 10% increase in killing ability once you get the the sorts of wounds even a 223 calibre fragmenting match projectile will achieve. I'd say if anything the average hunter that shoots less than 50 rounds a year benefits more from a lighter recoiling rifle.

That's a great point @Stocky. I'm not a fan of heavy recoil and prefer lighter calibres. Went for a 223 in the bush for that exact reason, where shot placement is critical. It's an enjoyable round to shoot, and seems to kill deer just as dead as when using the 7mm08 (my mtn rifle).

Originally Posted by Hermitage

Yeah no 'heavy for calibre' bullets involved as this was back in 1991 when I was a student at Teachers College.
My mate & I did a Sth Island trip and this happened when we were shooting rabbits in Tekapo. Back then we didn't have rangefinders so were reloading using small-for-calibre bullets at high velocity for MPBR (we did have a 'Shooters Chrony' chronograph).
I was using a Ruger .25/06 shooting 85gr Nosler Ballistic Tips @ 3600fps and he was using a Brno Fox shooting 40 gr Sierra Blitzkings @3700, so it was a very fragile explosive bullet.

Therefore I'll admit the bullet that I was hit with was nothing compared to the heavy-for-calibre bullets this thread is based on.

Nice controlled and factual answer to what could have been taken as a sarcastic question. All bullet wounds hurt and can do considerable damage, even 224 fmj, which a lot of people seem to write off as ineffective for anything.

Tone is invisible on the internet. No sarcasm was intended.

Just had a brief look through the article that Gimp mentioned on page one. What I took out of that was, all things being equal, a bullet carrying more energy has the potential to create a larger wound wherever it hits a deer than a bullet carrying less energy. I believe that is indisputable. All you fellas that swear by your little bullets keep on using them by all means. This thread seems to be aimed at making us fellas who use bigger bullets feel inadequate because somehow we seem to be wasting energy in some way. Please accept my apology from the rest of us if somebody laughed at your little gun in the past.

Originally Posted by Mararoa

Just had a brief look through the article that Gimp mentioned on page one. What I took out of that was, all things being equal, a bullet carrying more energy has the potential to create a larger wound wherever it hits a deer than a bullet carrying less energy. I believe that is indisputable.

Can you quote the bit that leads you to believe that ?


Here's one of many quotes from that paper, and many others, that has led me to form the conclusion that I have -

Fig. 9.2
Wound profiles according to Fackler [1, 2, 21] of two stable spheres depositing roughly the same amount of energy in gelatine blocks but producing strikingly different wound cavities. In the case of the fast, small and light-weight steel sphere (478J), most of the kinetic energy is used up in the stretch mechanism, producing a large temporary cavity and a small permanent tract. In contrast to this, most of the large and heavy but slow sphere’s energy (430J) is used up in crushing of tissue, thus producing a large permanent tract but a small temporary cavity. This sharp contrast already demonstrates that gunshot injuries cannot be adequately described by terms like energy or energy deposit. The energy transfer of the fast sphere is also higher than that of the slow one

I suppose "all things being equal" you mean diameter, mass and construction. The only variable affecting energy would be impact velocity. Depending on construction you may end up with a larger or small wound? If a projectile fully fragments early on and does not penetrate, due to increased velocity (energy) it may have a small wound volume in total ?

all depends on construction - more predictive than the quantity of energy

You’ll notice I said all things being equal. Same spinning between bullets, same yaw same fragmentation. The above passage you are highlighting suggests two spheres of different dimensions traveling at different speeds carrying the same energy. I’m talking different energy

Originally Posted by Mararoa

You’ll notice I said all things being equal. Same spinning between bullets, same yaw same fragmentation. The above passage you are highlighting suggests two spheres of different dimensions traveling at different speeds carrying the same energy. I’m talking different energy

Yeah I hit go early and had to add a bit.

In the case where mass and construction and diameter are equal, energy is only a secondary proxy for velocity. (Ek = 1/2MassxVelocity^2)


Higher velocity at impact will cause faster expansion and/or fragmentation. Depending on construction that may increase or reduce the overall size of the wound. Increased expansion generally means less penetration.

This is essentially a comparison between "is it worth pushing the same bullet faster or not"

Sorry I didn’t read your post correctly. A larger diameter bullet traveling as fast or faster will develop more energy. If it performs the same as a smaller bullet (fragmentation,yaw etc) I believe it must create a larger wound channel.

A larger diameter bullet may or may not carry more energy - it depends on mass not diameter. the formula for kinetic energy is half mass times velocity squared. Velocity has an exponentially larger contribution to energy than mass. This isn't reflected in an exponentially different wound.


Your statement of "all else equal aside from energy" implies same mass, diameter, construction, spin, etc - just different velocity.



In a scenario with 2 identically constructed bullets at the same velocity, one with greater mass and greater diameter - the larger bullet will create a larger wound channel but the evidence suggests that this isn't as pronounced as you might expect. The additional diameter does create a slightly larger wound channel and more mass = more fragments. Energy has little to do with it.

The best evidence we have to test this is relative gel tests. They indicate relatively small differences in max permanent cavity diameter.

I think we are talking the same thing. Energy on on one hand has to be balanced on the other with bullet performance. A heavier faster bullet of the same construction and terminal performance will create a wound that in all probability will debilitate an animal more quickly

Originally Posted by Mararoa

I think we are talking the same thing. Energy on on one hand has to be balanced on the other with bullet performance. A heavier faster bullet of the same construction and terminal performance will create a wound that in all probability will debilitate an animal more quickly

In theory- the evidence we have is that the bullets in question in this thread meet the threshold of "Sufficiency" and therefore anything "quicker" than that is theoretical.