well... lets see if I can start a fight in here...

Big joe · #1 05-07-2005, 11:29 PM

I may be a little strange... but I love looking at ballistic charts. I literally could sit and study them for hours. They have always fascinated me. I find it interesting though that there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how to calculate a cartridge's power. So far I've seen the ft/lbs, momentum and the optimum game weight and there may be others. So, do any of you ballisticians in here have an opinion on the BEST standard to calculate cartridge power? If so I'd love to here your opinions on all sides.

Thanks,

fabsroman · #2 05-08-2005, 12:00 AM

Joe,

That topic isn't going to start a fight in here. Maybe a discussion, but not a fight. If we could get through the "Best Deer Caliber" thread without a fight, I am confidant that we can get through this one without a fight, especially since I do not have anything to add to the topic about how to determine a cartridge's power. Last I checked, a caliber really didn't have any power without a cartridge. LOL

fabsroman · #3 05-08-2005, 12:06 AM

Joe,

I was just looking over some of the other posts and noticed that you started the "Perfect Varmint Cartridge Thread" too. You must really be looking to heat this forum up. LOL

Big joe · #4 05-08-2005, 12:59 AM

Beleive it or not I do know the difference between caliber and cartridge... must be spaced tonight... anyway... I fixed it for ya.

Thanks,

gd357 · #5 05-08-2005, 08:30 AM

Big Joe,

Right now, and probably for quite a while into the future, there is no absolute way to measure any round's power. You have Taylor's KO values, and the standard energy equation ((mv^2)/c), but I don't like either one of them too well for one simple reason. No one has been able to take into account the shape of the bullet nose, and therefore accurately depict how much energy will be transferred to the target. For example, a pointed FMJ is will not have near the energy transfer of a hollow point, wadcutter, or round-nosed bullet. This is also why a lot of "ballistically inferior" cartridges do extremely well in the field (the 30-30 for one). Even though many people have tried to come up with an absolute formula, there is probably no way to account for the different shapes of the bullets, velocity, weight, B.C., etc. in one formula. It's not a bad ideal to look at these things before selecting a caliber/cartridge, but it doesn't mean too much in the field. That's my 2 cents worth. LOL

gd357

L. Cooper · #6 05-08-2005, 10:07 AM

Try this for a good read that will indicate the complexity of this topic.

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b.../wounding.html

quigleysharps4570 · #7 05-08-2005, 11:37 AM

"well...lets see if I can start a fight in here..."

Why?

Evan03 · #8 05-08-2005, 01:46 PM

270win is the best caliber to shoot deer with. there i got that outa the way, i think we need banner floating on the screen (270win caliber of the year)

im kidding jokeing, dont anyone get upset

my calibers have plenty of power to take elk. i dont know why but they just do. theres just some things i realy dont need to know. the power/ energy is created to get the job done. all i have to do is harness that power and use it to its potential.

fabsroman · #9 05-08-2005, 02:15 PM

I think Joe was trying to be funny, just as I was trying to be funny with my caliber/cartridge comment. I could tell from his other posts, and this post too, that he actually knows what he is talking about, but I had to be a smarty pants. I would use another adjective, but it wouldn't be appropriate for little children.

Classicvette63 · #10 05-08-2005, 09:42 PM

IMO, the only stat worth looking at is ft./lbs. All the other "formulas" don't amount to a hill of beans. Ft./lbs can very loosely be used to compare one round to another, although there are problems with this as well. xxxxft./lbs out of a .22-250 vs the same xxxx ft./lbs from a .30-30 are two different animals. There are just too many variables to have any one formula work. Bullet construction, weight, nose type, diameter and intended use all contribute to foul up a formula.

Big joe · #11 05-08-2005, 10:55 PM

Hey guys "fight" was used euphamistically in my original post. Fact is... a real fist fight or argument gives me a bit of a tummy ache! I do find this topic extremely interesting for the very reasons mentioned above i.e. some cartriges just seem to work better than their "power" would indicate like the 30-30. And I realize that it really doesnt matter which method is closest to the truth because the only thing that really matters is the bullet kills the game cleanly not necessarily why it does. HOWEVER, I think that is the point of this forum-- to discuss things that are interesting some of which may not "matter" all that much. So, thanks for your posts... and keep them coming... I love this ballistics stuff! And NO FIGHTING ! or we will send you to your room!!!! LOL

Thanks,

Rocky Raab · #12 05-09-2005, 09:50 AM

This is gonna be a tough pill to swallow for a guy who pores over ballistics charts, but...

The best indicator of a cartridge's "killing" power is -- a long-established reputation.

There is no numerical system that can predict killing power for two reasons: there is no way to predict the precise way a bullet will expand (or not), and there's no way to predict how an animal will react to the hit (or not).

Other very important factors include just where the bullet hits, what path it takes through the animal, how far from the hunter the hit takes place, the physical state of the animal when it was hit, and (for all I know) the hunter's horoscope.

That's why the classic cartridges are better: they have a proven track record on certain classes of animals. "New and Improved" rounds (or bullet designs) just haven't proven themselves yet.

Look at the .17 HMR for example. It's only been out a short time, and people have tried using it on critters from mice to coyotes. I think there was even a thread here about using it on wild hogs! But the rapidly growing consensus is that it is a sure killer ONLY on animals the size of jack rabbits and smaller. Not even dainty fox are reliably killed with it, not to mention tough critters like badgers or coyotes.

On the other hand, there's the 270 that Evan mentioned. Thoroughly understood and known, it is a superb round with more than adequate killing power for anything up to elk.

Dutchboy · #13 05-09-2005, 09:58 AM

up to AND INCLUDING elk.......

Ft/lbs is the only scientific measurement. The others are nothing more than attempts to match observations to easily understood numbers.

Dutch.

HPBTMTCH · #14 05-09-2005, 11:22 PM

What rocky and GD said. And i`ll add, if a bullet strikes at over 3,000 fps it makes a better permenent wound channel, and the larger the bullet the better.

Rocky Raab · #15 05-10-2005, 10:23 AM

That 3000 fps/wound channel deal may be true. I'm not arguing.

But it's also true (and proven with much longer trail of evidence - no pun intended) that a bullet that hits at 2400 to 2600 fps penetrates farther, doesn't fragment and mushrooms fully, thus letting the air out of whatever critter it hit.

All those classic "meat" calibers from the 30-40 Krag up to the 375 H&H launch hefty bullets at moderate speeds - and game just keels over. I think it was the long-gone gun experimenter and writer Harvey Page who called the 220-gr roundnoses for the Krag "blue whistlers" after the huge amount of bare lead at their nose. And they went through big animals like snowplows.