How important is it?

[Doublecluck]

You think a narrow wound channel from a bullet not disrupting meaningfully correlates more with a nominal bullet weight*velocity ^2 calculation than how a given bullet behaves (consistently or otherwise) at a given terminal velocity? Doesn’t seem to since he had better results with a lighter and slower 88 ELD.

How much energy would he need with a bullet behaving that way for it to be sufficient for a 500# animal? A 140 elite hunter at the same velocity would be approaching the 1500 ft-lb mark. Is that enough energy if the bullet doesn’t meaningfully disrupt?

A 140 at the same speed would have 32 Gr more of mass to drive it, a greater surface area to expand and an higher sectional density which means it would retain velocity longer/further after impact which would further aid expansion. All of that means it would thereby transfer more energy. Yes a 140 will meaningfully disrupt an elk. Done it.

 

[Forkyfinder]

So it’s more important than the energy number?

In terms of what? Killing? No shit. Thats the point. If you dont have enough velocity for bullet destruction/expansion - it doesnt matter what the energy is. More violent expansion is a killer on game - read the article and how it describes damage to the cns. You can get more violent expansion with less velocity by changing bullets. Accubond long range are supposed to expand down to 1300 fps.

Ive got news for you - the equation for energy includes velocity as a variable, squared.

You need enough impact velocity, mass, and transfer of the energy (bullet behavior) to kill. More like a 3 legged stool than "this is more important"

 

[Doublecluck]

In terms of what? Killing? No shit. Thats the point. If you dont have enough velocity for bullet destruction/expansion - it doesnt matter what the energy is. More violent expansion is a killer on game - read the article and how it describes damage to the cns. You can get more violent expansion with less velocity by changing bullets. Accubond long range are supposed to expand down to 1300 fps.

Ive got news for you - the equation for energy includes velocity as a variable, squared.

You need enough impact velocity, mass, and transfer of the energy (bullet behavior) to kill. More like a 3 legged stool than "this is more important"

I don’t think many on this thread realize we are talking about the same thing. Any mass that has more velocity has more energy. I never implied velocity wasn’t important , I just implied that velocity without mass might be less than desirable.
Not even sure how that debatable.

 

[Doublecluck]

Just pointing out, a 88 ELD and a 212 ELD have far more similar impact velocity ranges for ideal performance (I'm looking for 1800 fps minimum, would rather have 2000 fps), than they do energy ranges. Same as, if I was shooting .224 64 gr Hammer Hunters or .308 174 gr Hammer Hunters, I'm primarily going to focus on how fast they need to impact to open reliably. I'd probably not personally want to use them below an impact velocity of say 2200 fps, but they obviously have very different energy numbers at that velocity.



Sounds like your issue was at a high impact velocity, which can definitely happen with some bullets including ELD's.

Of the seven elk I've put bullets into with 6mm's, that's the only wound that gave me pause. I switched and used a 103 ELD-X on the next one, was far happier with this 1.5" hole and the related carnage.

View attachment 312401

We killed 6 antelope and 3 deer with em this year, 181-864, all died where they were standing. If I were gonna shoot an elk with one I would probably keep it under 400 (in my 6cm) based on my experience with the hybrids. I’ve had the hybrids act like a accubond on occasion. Animals still died, just didn’t get that Berger thump drop like I’m used to. If I were gonna go out to shoot an elk beyond 400 with a 6mm, I’d choose a 105 vld, and it would act much like your 88 eldm. 103’s are great bullets.

 

[brockel]

Hmmmm...... mtmuley

Doesn’t Steve also push for impact velocity instead of paying attention to ftlbs of energy?

 

[Doublecluck]

Doesn’t Steve also push for impact velocity instead of paying attention to ftlbs of energy?

If I was selling a bullet multiple times harder than lead, I would be pushing velocity, energy is less significant without expansion or the bullet inverting on its horizontal axis (increasing surface area). But no surprise there.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I don’t think many on this thread realize we are talking about the same thing. Any mass that has more velocity has more energy. I never implied velocity wasn’t important , I just implied that velocity without mass might be less than desirable.
Not even sure how that debatable.

Nobody takes issue with the idea that if 2 bullets that behave the same terminally, the one with more mass is expected to damage more tissue (at least with a traditional lead bullet). It doesn't take a guy multiplying the bullet mass difference by velocity squared to understand it. It's obvious.

The disagreement is in the suggestion that 1000 lb/ft is not sufficient for elk and the cause of Carl's poor observed wound channel. You just said yourself you think a 105 vld or 103eldx would have performed better but with the same shot both would have had a lower impact velocity (due to BC) and lower energy, so how important are the energy numbers?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Nobody takes issue with the idea that if 2 bullets that behave the same terminally, the one with more mass is expected to damage more tissue (at least with a traditional lead bullet). It doesn't take a guy multiplying the bullet mass difference by velocity squared to understand it. It's obvious.

The disagreement is in the suggestion that 1000 lb/ft is not sufficient for elk and the cause of Carl's poor observed wound channel. You just said yourself you think a 105 vld or 103eldx would have performed better but with the same shot both would have had a lower impact velocity (due to BC) and lower energy, so how important are the energy numbers?

Whos arguing 1000 ft lbs as a minimum?

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

Dunno - I’m still really concerned/opinionated/undecided. I’m waiting for more data and proof. Where’s @rjthehunter ?

 

[Doublecluck]

Dunno - I’m still really concerned/opinionated/undecided. I’m waiting for more data and proof. Where’s @rjthehunter ?

Tell the truth. You know what it is.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Whos arguing 1000 ft lbs as a minimum?

It wasn't stated that 1000 ft lbs is a minimum just suggested that it was insufficient and at least partially to blame for Carl's poor observed wound channel.

View attachment 312288
Can’t imagine what the issue was on a 500 lb animal

If I had less than desirable experience with a 6 mm 108 at 2100 fps and around 1k ft lbs on an elk, I wouldn’t be looking for a different bullet , I would be looking at a different cartridge.

Which is it? is 1000 ft/lbs not enough energy or does that particular bullet/impact velocity combo not behave consistent enough terminally?

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

I'd rather get closer than care about BC

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Here's 3 examples of terminal gel tests to the FBI protocol - 155 ELDm and 168 ELDm both through a 26" 308. 106 TAP through a 18" 6 ARC. The 106 TAP bullet is similar to ELDx with ever so slightly thinner jacket and innerlock ring a little further forward on the bullet. Muzzle energy are as follows: 155: 2795, 168: 2663, 106: 1622

How is energy valuable in differentiating the performance here? Keep in mind some of the barriers they are shooting through are tougher on bullets than an elk shoulder.

155:


168:


106

 

[Forkyfinder]

Here's 3 examples of terminal gel tests to the FBI protocol - 155 ELDm and 168 ELDm both through a 26" 308. 106 TAP through a 18" 6 ARC. The 106 TAP bullet is similar to ELDx with ever so slightly thinner jacket and innerlock ring a little further forward on the bullet. Muzzle energy are as follows: 155: 2795, 168: 2663, 106: 1622

How is energy valuable in differentiating the performance here? Keep in mind some of the barriers they are shooting through are tougher on bullets than an elk shoulder.

155:
View attachment 312416

168:
View attachment 312417

106
View attachment 312418

Looks like the 308 bullets expanded their energy slightly sooner (depth of max cavity) - The 3 dimensional "volume" of the damage wound channel is larger in both 308 examples as well. Recall that the max cavity diameter, and expanded bullet diameter, would be squared in calculating volume of the void made (damage) from the bullet where the length (penetration) is not.

 

[rogerthat]

Here's 3 examples of terminal gel tests to the FBI protocol - 155 ELDm and 168 ELDm both through a 26" 308. 106 TAP through a 18" 6 ARC. The 106 TAP bullet is similar to ELDx with ever so slightly thinner jacket and innerlock ring a little further forward on the bullet. Muzzle energy are as follows: 155: 2795, 168: 2663, 106: 1622

How is energy valuable in differentiating the performance here? Keep in mind some of the barriers they are shooting through are tougher on bullets than an elk shoulder.

155:
View attachment 312416

168:
View attachment 312417

106
View attachment 312418

Damn auto glass is tough chit. I actually learned something from this thread

 

[nrpate05]

There was a point in time where I thought it was quite important and it certainly is for some people. I shoot out to 500 yards - maybe 400 on an animal so its not that big of a deal. I generally shoot monos light and fast, so usually lowish BC's. Doesn't seem to make a difference.

 

[Deleted member 52937]

Dunno - I’m still really concerned/opinionated/undecided. I’m waiting for more data and proof. Where’s @rjthehunter ?

Kurt, do you not see that our resident HT engineer has provided ample data, science, theory, physics explanations that scientifically prove with 110% certainty BC is in fact a very significant factor in bullet selection? I think @rjthehunter has more important hunt, lift, shoot routines and 10mm bear defense drills to practice. Bow hunting purist don't waste their time with nonsense like this.

 

[Nick87]

resident HT engineer

One of many.

 

[rjthehunter]

Kurt, do you not see that our resident HT engineer has provided ample data, science, theory, physics explanations that scientifically prove with 110% certainty BC is in fact a very significant factor in bullet selection? I think @rjthehunter has more important hunt, lift, shoot routines and 10mm bear defense drills to practice. Bow hunting purist don't waste their time with nonsense like this.

Easy there big shooter. Only curls I'm doing are at a barstool. Not sure why every thought you have involves cam... As I've stated in the past, he's not my cup of tea, but I won't judge you for liking him.

I am going to the range tomorrow. I'll bring my 1cm now that you mention it. Good call.

@Greenhorn I'm just glad to know you're thinking of me, even when I haven't thought about you all day!

 

[Deleted member 52937]

Easy there big shooter. Only curls I'm doing are at a barstool. Not sure why every thought you have involves cam... As I've stated in the past, he's not my cup of tea, but I won't judge you for liking him.

I am going to the range tomorrow. I'll bring my 1cm now that you mention it. Good call.

@Greenhorn I'm just glad to know you're thinking of me, even when I haven't thought about you all day!

Cam blocked me in his DM's when I asked him if he was a front wiper. If you hear from him, tell him I'm sorry and I didn't mean to trigger him so bad. I'm expecting to see some results next fall from all that range time you're putting in!