Differences on calibres
Question:
>When thinking about calibres, the two most important factors are projectile >weight and its velocity, which translates into foot-pounds of energy.
Only to a point. I’d say bullet construction comes first, putting it in the right place comes a close second. >The >state of Maryland, where I live, states that the rifle used for deer >hunting "should be capable of developing a muzzle velocity of at least 1200 >foot-pounds". The .270 I use develops around 1400.
Really? I’m surprised: a 150grn bullet fired from a .270 (or any other gun) at say 2900fps delivers 2801ft-lbs — you’re wide of the mark by a factor of two. For a large deer, a delivered energy (on impact) of 900ft-lbs is widely accepted as being plenty. At 200 yards, your .270 delivers 2092ft-lbs, twice the 900ft-lbs suggested. >This gets into another discussion topic; namely the amount of force >delivered to the animal at impact, and is it enough of a shock to kill?
There’s a difference between the bullet *arriving* with a given amount of energy, and the *tranferring* energy. That’s down to bullet construction, and placement. >If >that is the case, one could conceivably use a .177 Husqvarna and blast away >(on a calm day; and assuming you don’t want the meat).
Excepting that you haven’t considered wind drift on that teeny-weeny bullet. :-) –Jonathan Jonathan Spencer — forensic firearms examiner Keith Borer Consultants Mountjoy Research Centre, Durham, England, DH1 3UR tel: +44 191 386 6107 fax: +44 191 383 0686 Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/ To leave the Hunting listserv list, send a message with SIGNOFF HUNTING
Response:
I think what is often missed in discussions of this type, is how much of that kenetic energy is actually transfered to the animal. this is where larger bullet sizes and hollow points come in to play. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->When thinking about calibres, the two most important factors are >weight and its velocity, which translates into foot-pounds of energy. >Only to a point. I’d say bullet construction comes first, putting it in >the right place comes a close second. >state of Maryland, where I live, states that the rifle used for deer >hunting "should be capable of developing a muzzle velocity of at least >foot-pounds". The .270 I use develops around 1400. >Really? I’m surprised: a 150grn bullet fired from a .270 (or any other >gun) at say 2900fps delivers 2801ft-lbs — you’re wide of the mark by a >factor of two. For a large deer, a delivered energy (on impact) of >900ft-lbs is widely accepted as being plenty. At 200 yards, your .270 >delivers 2092ft-lbs, twice the 900ft-lbs suggested. >This gets into another discussion topic; namely the amount of force >delivered to the animal at impact, and is it enough of a shock to kill? >There’s a difference between the bullet *arriving* with a given amount >of energy, and the *tranferring* energy. That’s down to bullet >construction, and placement. >that is the case, one could conceivably use a .177 Husqvarna and blast >(on a calm day; and assuming you don’t want the meat). >Excepting that you haven’t considered wind drift on that teeny-weeny >bullet. :-)
Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/ To leave the Hunting listserv list, send a message with SIGNOFF HUNTING
Response:
> I have read a lot lately about how .223 is good/not good for deer, .243 > also good/not good, etc., and how the only way to really take that ol’ > down is to use a .300 or .375. > When thinking about calibres, the two most important factors are > weight and its velocity, which translates into foot-pounds of energy. > state of Maryland, where I live, states that the rifle used for deer > hunting "should be capable of developing a muzzle velocity of at least > foot-pounds". The .270 I use develops around 1400. > This gets into another discussion topic; namely the amount of force > delivered to the animal at impact, and is it enough of a shock to kill? > that is the case, one could conceivably use a .177 Husqvarna and blast > (on a calm day; and assuming you don’t want the meat).
I’m sorry, David, but you seem very confused about some things. While two very important things to consider are projectile weight and velocity, they are far from the only factors to consider when talking about lethality of a particular cartridge. Bullet diameter (and therefore sectional density), and bullet construction are also absolutely essential. Kinetic energy is an important figure, but does not in itself indicate much about lethal effect. You better re-read the Maryland regulations. There is no such thing as a velocity of 1200 foot-pounds. I have used a .270 on deer for years, and I have no idea what yours develops 1400 of. What is a .177 Husqvarna? Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/ To leave the Hunting listserv list, send a message with SIGNOFF HUNTING
Response:
I have read a lot lately about how .223 is good/not good for deer, .243 is also good/not good, etc., and how the only way to really take that ol’ deer down is to use a .300 or .375. When thinking about calibres, the two most important factors are projectile weight and its velocity, which translates into foot-pounds of energy. The state of Maryland, where I live, states that the rifle used for deer hunting "should be capable of developing a muzzle velocity of at least 1200 foot-pounds". The .270 I use develops around 1400. This gets into another discussion topic; namely the amount of force delivered to the animal at impact, and is it enough of a shock to kill? If that is the case, one could conceivably use a .177 Husqvarna and blast away (on a calm day; and assuming you don’t want the meat). Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/ To leave the Hunting listserv list, send a message with SIGNOFF HUNTING
