[rushbeau]

Thats a good story, Mike.

Long ago, I came to realize that most (if not all) "gun writers" are just as bogus, sensationalistic, and irrevalent as Dan Rather. They do a disservice to us and mislead many an innocent gun owner down the primrose path. It angers me to think of all the money I wasted on gun magazines. But, because of forums like this, I learned just how full of hot air they are.

Thanks for the story.

Rushbeau

 

[Ranch Dog]

Dang Mike, I never could find this post about your hunt. Well done!

 

[Chief RID]

The stick and string kills em just as quick as shooting them with a gun.

 

[MetaPotent]

You people are all blowing this "1000ft/lb of energy requirement" out of proportion.

Everyone knows it doesn't take 1000 ft/lb of energy to KILL a deer. But it is recommended to use a weapon that would produce that much energy on target at a given range for a likely CLEAN and QUICK kill with 1 shot in the vitals-area (also taking into account human error for shot placement).

The original poster even said that after his first shot the buffalo ran away about 30 yards, then it took 2 more shots to put him completely out. That doesn't sound like a quick and clean kill. It took 3 shots!

At age 15 I killed a bull buffalo that I later found weighed 1600 lbs. I aimed right behind the shoulder and took one single shot from my .30-06 with a 180gr JSP at 135yds, it turned sideways, stumbled forward about 5 feet, its front legs buckled, and it fell face first into the dirt never to stand again.

 

[James Gates]

Friends All.......This has been an interesting thread that reflects the changing attitude on many of the past's accepeted notions. For the lack of a better example, the ammo compaines, et all, have pushed the foot/pounds of energy to make the higher powered ammo look good.
Maybe an example would show what I am saying: Three bullets, all the same sectional density, caliber, and velocity. All would have the same foot/pounds of energy.......except one is a full metal roundnose jacketed solid, one is a thin jacket hollow point, and the third is a hard cast heat treated lead alloy with a 75% meplat. You all know they would not perform the same in game!........but how can you explain that to someone that has a closed mind and is sold on one of the designs?
What is grossly overlooked is that fact that bullet designs are set based on the game and the distance it is to be used. Each situation has its requierments and they are different. If one looks at the direction the designs have gone through over the past 100 years, we begin to see trends. Most were aimed at sales, rather than actual needs. Always something new to fill the pipes! Some say that's the American Way, maybe so, but hunter/shooters are beginning to wise up.
There will always be resistance to new (or reintroduced) designs because the person that has bought something (better or worse) must justify thier sales choice!.....just as the syndicated rag writers must write about the product that gives the rag the most advertising!
Dixie Slugs has been hammered by the whiz-bang shotgun shooters (most in shotgun only states) that are pushing sabot loads and trying to make a long range rifle out of a shotgun! They have either forgotten, tend to ignore, are just dumb about what worked in the past with a bullet design for a specific type of game at a specific distance! If it worked in the past, it will work now!
So......maybe we need to not become polerize and explore all the possible designs.....based on what they were designed for.........James

 

[jwp475]

You people are all blowing this "1000ft/lb of energy requirement" out of proportion.

Everyone knows it doesn't take 1000 ft/lb of energy to KILL a deer. But it is recommended to use a weapon that would produce that much energy on target at a given range for a likely CLEAN and QUICK kill with 1 shot in the vitals-area (also taking into account human error for shot placement).

The original poster even said that after his first shot the buffalo ran away about 30 yards, then it took 2 more shots to put him completely out. That doesn't sound like a quick and clean kill. It took 3 shots!

At age 15 I killed a bull buffalo that I later found weighed 1600 lbs. I aimed right behind the shoulder and took one single shot from my .30-06 with a 180gr JSP at 135yds, it turned sideways, stumbled forward about 5 feet, its front legs buckled, and it fell face first into the dirt never to stand again.

Can you explain how foot pounds of energy adds to the wounding process? Do you know how many foot pounds of energy a bow and arrow has? Can you show any medical evidence that supports the therory that energy transfer aids in the wounding proces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

by MetaPotent
Everyone knows it doesn't take 1000 ft/lb of energy to KILL a deer. But it is recommended to use a weapon that would produce that much energy on target at a given range for a likely CLEAN and QUICK kill with 1 shot in the vitals-area (also taking into account human error for shot placement).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you explain how foot pounds of energy can make up for poor shot placement?

If you would care to learn the truth about the wounding process then read the link below and reachers the list of reference materials at the end of the article
http://members.aol.com/randymagic/ballltd47.htm

 

[A BLIND OLD MAN]

I know I was a pretty young and ignorant back when I put two deer in the pot with a Colt Lightweight Commander .45. It did take five rounds at about 25 or 30 yards. But then again, I was desperate to put meat on the table. Young Bride was pregnant with first child and I had not gotten paid by the military in nearly two months. I was ashamed that my fellow Marines were covering me for rent. Got the job done though.

 

[Hammer2Fall]

Nice Buffer MikeG!

So I guess when the Sioux and Cheyenne were using their spears and arrows to take down Buffs THEY generated 1000 ft/lbs? It's all nonsense. Hit them in the wheelhouse-they're gonna die. Tool of your choice.

 

[MetaPotent]

Can you explain how foot pounds of energy adds to the wounding process? Do you know how many foot pounds of energy a bow and arrow has? Can you show any medical evidence that supports the therory that energy transfer aids in the wounding proces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

by MetaPotent
Everyone knows it doesn't take 1000 ft/lb of energy to KILL a deer. But it is recommended to use a weapon that would produce that much energy on target at a given range for a likely CLEAN and QUICK kill with 1 shot in the vitals-area (also taking into account human error for shot placement).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you explain how foot pounds of energy can make up for poor shot placement?

If you would care to learn the truth about the wounding process then read the link below and reachers the list of reference materials at the end of the article
http://members.aol.com/randymagic/ballltd47.htm

"Can you explain how foot pounds of energy adds to the wounding process? Do you know how many foot pounds of energy a bow and arrow has?"

The recommended amount of 1000 ft/lbs is for a bullet which is much smaller than an ARROW! A bow and arrow obviously generate less energy than a bullet but they don't need to produce as much. An arrow is longer and wider than the average bullet and therefore has more wounding capability. Arrows also don't fly perfectly straight and do not remain stiff in flight or once it penetrates a living animal. The arrow wobbles and yaws within animals causing more tissue damage amd blood-loss in a shorter duration which in turn causes more shock and effect on the animals nervous system. Plus, I bow-hunt as well and i've never seen an animal go down as quickly with an arrow in its vitals than with a well placed (high-energy) shot to the vitals.

"Can you explain how foot pounds of energy can make up for poor shot placement?"

Well, if someone misses the vitals, a high-energy shot would cause a larger amount of damage than a lower energy shot and be more likely to create a large amount of bloodloss and cause greater shock to the nervous system. This shock to the nervous system of the animal disrupts its ability run away or fight back. Giving the hunter an easier chance of a follow up shot (if needed). But it mainly will have the potentional to the kill the animal more quickly if no follow up shot is made.

Remember, nobody has every claimed you need atleast 1000 ft/lbs of energy to KILL a deer. Its RECOMENDED because it will give a much higher chance of a quick kill, given the chance of human error, and other variables that could prevent a successful kill.

I can't back this up with medical documentation, but I don't need to. Most people with half a brain understand the concept and don't jump to the conclusion that there is some marketing conspiracy going on to brainwash unsuspecting hunters into buying more expensive, high-energy ammunition.

Next you people will say that high-energy ammuntion is actually less likely to kill an animal and that its a conspiracy masterminded by left-wing hippies who want to protect the lives of animals.

 

[LEE J THOMPSON]

this is what I know, my 44mag with a Hornady 240 Grn XTP, from my Ruger SB, hits a deer hard and puts it down! ! !

 

[MikeG]

Meta.... appreciate your comments. But read it again.

Blood ALREADY flowing out of the nose at the second shot.... critter was dead on it's feet. Dead.

Third shot necessary? Heck no.... but I was shooting someone else's bullets. And bullets are cheap, compared to ER visits Also, it was interesting to see the bullet performance through heavy bone at short range. Interesting, but not necessary.

As far as the 1,000 ft-lb rule.... I can only ask, what would the rule be if we had a base 16 number system (hexadecimal)? Base 8 (octal)? Something else? 1,000 is just too convenient of a number. Why is 1,000 good and 999 not good? Think about it....

One serious mistake that hunters make, is equating energy transfer with tissue destruction. They aren't the same, not even close.

Let's just argue, for example, that all three shots were necessary. That would mean that 2646 ft-lbs. of KE were necessary for a 1,000 lb. critter. Why do we need 1,000lb for a 100 lb deer, then?

No one who favors KE as a means of quantifying 'killing power' has ever been able to answer that question.

 

[MikeG]

Nice Buffer MikeG!

So I guess when the Sioux and Cheyenne were using their spears and arrows to take down Buffs THEY generated 1000 ft/lbs? It's all nonsense. Hit them in the wheelhouse-they're gonna die. Tool of your choice.

Yup... classic mistake by under-educated, ignorant people who didn't understand wound ballistics!

 

[Ruger4570]

The 1,000 pound concept has been around forever. It makes a good "general" rule and eliminates a lot of Varmit calibers per se. I guess it is a goal to strive for, but, it certainly is not an absolute. Any bullet, arrow or spear capable of pennetrating the vital organs works. Pure and simple. I guess I have alway been of the Keith mentality with big bores and heavy bullets at moderate velocities. Sure, they aren't flat shooting, but they work well. Personally, I don't shoot any game beyond a maximum of 100 yards and most times a lot less. I don't need some super magnum, in fact I use a 45-70 lately. I have droped back over a 100 years in gun evolution and fine it drops game as well as my Magnums. I have had 45-70 bullets completly pennetrate an Elk and it was only going around 1400 fps at the muzzle. I guess people that quote the 1,000 foot pounds mean well, but is isn't a requirement most times, maybe at no time.

 

[jwp475]

I know that you can't provide medical documentation to show that energy transfer aids in the wounding process. In fact the medical information will show that foot pounds of energy is meaning less in predicting a firearms ability to inflic mortal wounds. Disruptions of vital tissue ( a hole through it ) that allows rapids blood loss or a hit to the CNS is what causes a mortal wound, not energy transfer.
Go to the link that I provided in my first post to you and read the text,then look at the list of reference material ( 72 +or-). Look up some of Dr. Fackler's material and read you will then begin to understand what acctualy takes place in the wounding process,and forget the Guns & Ammo nonsence and leave it out of a disscusion of wound ballistics.

 

[kdub]

OK, fellas - let's all chill a bit.

Now, I was brought up reading Keith and O'Connor and cut my teeth reloading back about '61 or so. Still have all digits and eyeballs, so must be doing something right.

My firearms education was gleaned from the books of the day and actual hunting experiences. The 1,000 lb rule was in effect then and still so today. I'm not arguing the point that game hasn't been cleanly taken with lesser lethal means - heck, the very first deer I took was helping a rancher friend crop depredating deer off his winter wheat field. A .22LR between the ribs and through the lungs did the job nicely. But, that hasn't been my primary deer rifle since then. I'm a firm believer in the 1K rule and reload my centerfire rifles to have this remaining energy at whatever range I intend as a maximum. Anything past that doesn't get the hammer dropped on it. In my state you can legally hunt deer with ANY centerfire. That includes a .22 Hornet, .204 Ruger, .223 Rem, or what have you. I'll pass on any of these.

Never took a deer sized animal with a handgun, though I've tried to find the critters when carrying one. Just never had the opportunity. Knowing my limitations, shots would have not exceeded 50 yds though. Did take a trophy lion with a Ruger 3-screw BH .41 Mag, but we were within spittin' distance of each other.

The key to all this jawjacking is projectile placement with enough oooomph to get to the vitals. If you can do that, really doesn't matter what you're shooting.

 

[jwp475]

MetaPotent,
Let's take a 223 with a 45 grain bullet at 3600 fps this equates to 1295 foot pounds of energy, would you consider this adequate for Bison? It has more foot pounds of energy than the 882 foot pounds in the load that MikeG used to take his Bison. This extreme shows the folly of relying on foot pounds of energy in predicting a rounds ability to inflict mortal wounds and certainly would not make up for poor shot placement no amount of energy from a firearm shoulder fired bullet will....

 

[MetaPotent]

People keep ignoring what I said and keep attacking me for 'suggesting 1000 lb/ft of energy is needed to kill a deer'. I never said it is needed to KILL a deer. Key word is "kill" and the key idea here is the TIME in which it takes to kill it.

Since it is apparent some people here would rather just cause a ruckus and not even try to understand anything, i'm going to articulate it in the clearest way.

I believe 1000 lb/ft is a rational guideline for energy RECOMMENDED for a CLEAN, FAST, and LIKELY KILL because higher energy DOES create MORE damage and MORE DISRUPTION to the NERVOUS SYSTEM of an ANIMAL and will INCAPACITATE it in a HUMANE way.

OK?

Mike G said:

"Blood ALREADY flowing out of the nose at the second shot.... critter was dead on it's feet. Dead."

You just don't have ANY desire to listen do you? You admitted it took 3 shots, and after the first one you had to chase it down. That is not a CLEAN kill that most sane people would RECOMMEND someone use 1000 lb/ft to attain. Plus, it was breathing out blood because you punctured its lungs, sure, it would have died later if you didn't catch up to it and shoot it again, but you didn't kill it QUICKLY with 1 shot like you would have if you used a cartridge that produced more energy.


jwb475 said:

"Metapotent, Let's take a 223 with a 45 grain bullet at 3600 fps this equates to 1295 foot pounds of energy, would you consider this adequate for Bison? It has more foot pounds of energy than the 882 foot pounds in the load that MikeG used to take his Bison. This extreme shows the folly of relying on foot pounds of energy in predicting a rounds ability to inflict mortal wounds and certainly would not make up for poor shot placement no amount of energy from a firearm shoulder fired bullet will...."

You assumptious BS from the beginning shows you don't fully understand the theme here. And your little question there is flawed and unsound from the beginning.

First of all nobody said you need 1000 ft/lb of energy to kill a bison, it was a deer. Second, I actually have personally seen what a 55gr .223 has done to a DEER even though its illegal, people HAVE succesfully downed a 120lb+ deer with this round. My buddy killed a buck (can't remember how much it weighed) and he took pictures of the incredibly damage a .223 did to the deer because it fragmented (since it fragmented it succesfully delivered its entire amount of energy within the animal rather than coming out the other end like a drill and expending energy outward. He said he took it at 75yds with 55gr remington bullet (you do the ballistics computation to find out how much energy arrived on impact). So even a .223 caliber can consistently down a deer if it generates enough energy. So there goes your wacky theory.

 

[alyeska338]

Okay, we are either going to play nice or the thread will have to be locked.

If you disagree, fine, none of us will ever agree with each other all the time, but do so with courtesy and respect. We can't have members flaming each other or talking down to one another. We have seen that tear forums completely apart and close them down in short order.

You fellows don't agree, fine, but keep it under control and without personal attack or belligerence.

Thanks

 

[jwp475]

jwb475 said:

"Metapotent, Let's take a 223 with a 45 grain bullet at 3600 fps this equates to 1295 foot pounds of energy, would you consider this adequate for Bison? It has more foot pounds of energy than the 882 foot pounds in the load that MikeG used to take his Bison. This extreme shows the folly of relying on foot pounds of energy in predicting a rounds ability to inflict mortal wounds and certainly would not make up for poor shot placement no amount of energy from a firearm shoulder fired bullet will...."

by jwp475

by MetaPotent
You assumptious BS from the beginning shows you don't fully understand the theme here. And your little question there is flawed and unsound from the beginning.

First of all nobody said you need 1000 ft/lb of energy to kill a bison, it was a deer. Second, I actually have personally seen what a 55gr .223 has done to a DEER even though its illegal, people HAVE succesfully downed a 120lb+ deer with this round. My buddy killed a buck (can't remember how much it weighed) and he took pictures of the incredibly damage a .223 did to the deer because it fragmented (since it fragmented it succesfully delivered its entire amount of energy within the animal rather than coming out the other end like a drill and expending energy outward. He said he took it at 75yds with 55gr remington bullet (you do the ballistics computation to find out how much energy arrived on impact). So even a .223 caliber can consistently down a deer if it generates enough energy. So there goes your wacky theory

by jwp475
MetaPotent,
Let's take a 223 with a 45 grain bullet at 3600 fps this equates to 1295 foot pounds of energy, would you consider this adequate for Bison? It has more foot pounds of energy than the 882 foot pounds in the load that MikeG used to take his Bison. This extreme shows the folly of relying on foot pounds of energy in predicting a rounds ability to inflict mortal wounds and certainly would not make up for poor shot placement no amount of energy from a firearm shoulder fired bullet will....

I don't see deer refered to here,you are the one getting of track.........try and concentrate.........
When talking about a light bodied animal like a Deer and heavy bodied animal like a Bison the high velocity small caliber rounds such as a 223 will not produce the same type of damage as in lighter bodied animals. Lung tissue and brain tissue can be disrupted a high velocity round because these tissues will not stretch and larger wound can be obtained, but not muscle, bone or tendon. The muscle tissue will expand ( which is called the tempoary wound cavity) and then contract back to the size of the permenat wound cavity. the permenant wound channel is directly related to the frontal area of the projectile and not by the amount of foot pounds of energy

byMetaPotent
I believe 1000 lb/ft is a rational guideline for energy RECOMMENDED for a CLEAN, FAST, and LIKELY KILL because higher energy DOES create MORE damage and MORE DISRUPTION to the NERVOUS SYSTEM of an ANIMAL and will INCAPACITATE it in a HUMANE way.

Again what proof can you provide that transfer of energy aids in the size of the permanent wound channel and any proof as to how this so called transfer of energy makes quicker kills?????

 

[James Gates]

Friends All!.......We have been up this trail some many times we should know it by heart!
Now, I am older than dirt and fell into error along the way by reading (believing) one concept (ultra velocity) and then anothor (big-big bullets), and then somewhere else! Along the way, I always found someone's writing that could justify whatever was my mindset at the time.
About ten years ago, I fell in with some friends that did crop damage control. They would kill over a hundred deer a year on the big South Florida farms.......each! All the meat was saved and given to various groups. These Florida deer are somewaht small.
Now, I looked at enough dead deer to make me sick of the entire scenario, but did learn a lot about tissue damage! These deer were shot at night with a q-bean and shot placement was good. After all was said and done....it was tissue destruction that killed these deer.....period! The quickest kills I saw was with a custom Ruger No1 in 22-250 with a Speer .224"-70 bullet at about 3600'/".......in the lungs! Is that an ideal setup for deer.....no! I also saw some much touted .44 Mag. bullets that failed.......yes the deer went down, but after running a hundred yards or so......overpenetration and poor tissue damage. From that I learned how important Meplat Area was.
Since then, I have seen some rather large hogs killed quick with the reintoduction of the British designs of the African loads.
The one thing I have come to realize is that most people have not killed enough game to understand the various bullet designs vs velocity vs distance!
It seems to me that one should have a cartridge that gives the following:
(1) A bullet, non-deforming or jacketed, than has the largest meplat area available without breaking up and one that retains the most weight. (a expanded jacketed bullet has larger meplat area)
(2) That will completely penetrate the animal from whatever the direction of impact.......this calls for Sectional Density!
(3) And.......enough velocity to accomplishing (1) and (2)!
(4) And last, but not least......a recoil that can be controlled to make a good shot placement!
None of this can be fully answered by running all the various ballistic programs, reading the BS put out by the gas bags, or dicussing (cussing)........only from years of Gut-Pile Analysis!
There are a few formula that has been developed by people that have tried to refine some of the older ones. However, it only compares one bullet to another.......not killing power, or whatever.
However, there is a human factor involved here.....a person must justify what they have bought (or use) no matter what!.......it's a head thing!
We can find some good answers though, by looking at cartridges that have been used (and remain being used) even after the introduction of the latest Magic Caliber! Some of these great old calibers refuse to die........because hunters keep killing game with them!.......James