.223 for bear, deer, elk and moose.

[River rat23]

One shot to the shoulder and two follow ups to the ribs at just under 100 yds. All exited.

That illustrates some of the hang-ups with using small rifle cartridges , for one, and underperforming barnes bullets, for two. A larger cartridge , with the proper bullet choice, may have dropped that bou where it stood. Instead it got another 10 seconds of fun with a bullet hole in its shoulder. Ideally the bullets are supposed to drop all of their energy inside the target. Transfer all the energy possible. If it took 3 shots, and they all passed thru, that to me would indicate some issues I'd want to avoid. I have personally witnessed 2 black bear and a couple deer hit with barnes , and I will not load them any more. I'd rather hit the target animal with a large, rapidly expanding bullet, to transfer energy and put it down as quickly as possible. Very hard to beat many of the sierra, hornady , berger and nosler choices out there these days. Many of their offerings are much better suited for big game, in my opinion. Barnes may have its place, and they may kill animals, but i just don't believe they are the best tool for the job

 

[Reburn]

That illustrates some of the hang-ups with using small rifle cartridges , for one, and underperforming barnes bullets, for two. A larger cartridge , with the proper bullet choice, may have dropped that bou where it stood. Instead it got another 10 seconds of fun with a bullet hole in its shoulder. Ideally the bullets are supposed to drop all of their energy inside the target. Transfer all the energy possible. If it took 3 shots, and they all passed thru, that to me would indicate some issues I'd want to avoid. I have personally witnessed 2 black bear and a couple deer hit with barnes , and I will not load them any more. I'd rather hit the target animal with a large, rapidly expanding bullet, to transfer energy and put it down as quickly as possible. Very hard to beat many of the sierra, hornady , berger and nosler choices out there these days. Many of their offerings are much better suited for big game, in my opinion. Barnes may have its place, and they may kill animals, but i just don't believe they are the best tool for the job

You still dont understand and illustrate that by talking about energy.
Energy has nothing to do with bullets and how they perform. 0. zilch, nada.
You almost have a complete understanding just need to remove energy from your vocabulary and mind.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Another consideration is the ability to place multiple rounds on target quickly with the .223. Yes, animals get shot multiple times! It’s not due to a lack of terminal performance from the first hit. It’s due to the ability to spot your own impact, prep and reset and deliver a second and third round almost immediately. If the animal is standing after its shot, it gets shot again regardless of where the first round hit. When you’re dealing with recoil of larger calibers in field weight rifles, it’s often impossible to deliver an immediate second hit despite the animal presenting the opportunity for the same amount of time.

 

[Reburn]

Ok then. Please explain how bullets energy translate into bullet expansion and wound cavity.

 

[River rat23]

You still dont understand and illustrate that by talking about energy.
Energy has nothing to do with bullets and how they perform. 0. zilch, nada.
You almost have a complete understanding just need to remove energy from your vocabulary and mind.

I believe that projectile weight, velocity, and bullet composition have something to do with how an animal reacts when I drop the hammer. I believe one has to make their own decisions when comparing kinetic energy, or something like taylor knock-down values. I also believe that if l do my homework and pick a good bullet, I tend to knock things down. My vocab isn't great, I'm just a fabricator who used college to get a drinking degree.

As far as transferred bullet "energy" or whatever you'd like to call it, I know there is a difference between temporary wound channels, and permanent ones. PNWGATOR is 100% right on follow-up shots though. There def is something to be said there. I agree wholeheartedly that you keep shooting til it's down

 

[PNWGATOR]

Ft lbs of energy is not a wounding mechanism and is meaningless to terminal ballistics

 

[Reburn]

Work is the change in Kinetic Energy. Work is also Force times distance. Force over the bullet area is stress. Stress is related to strain (and ultimately yield and fracturing) via the modulus of elasticity. This is the simplified version, but energy is THE mechanism by which bullets expand. Geometry and material (characterized by the modulus of elasticity) play large roles as well.

Feel free to outline the formula(s) showing how velocity (not energy) deforms material.

Bullet manufacturers market bullets based on “impact velocity “ the same way the used to (and some still do) market MV and BC. We just have better tools to measure/calculate MV & BC today. Impact velocity is marketing.

You constantly try to muddy the waters showing how smart you are trying to explain a known value. Yes, energy is what expands the bullet. I thought everyone has had that figured out after 52 pages.

A velocity and weight formula calculates energy. Again, a known value.

Energy is what is needed to expand the bullet however this is simplified into velocity since the weight and construction of the projectile is a known value. So, X minimum velocity is needed to expand X bullet reliably. Impact velocity is not marketing. Impact velocity is showing the known value on which X bullet performs as designed reliably.

Bullet construction plays a greater role in wound channel. AKA greater energy in a dissimilar bullet construction doesn’t = greater wound channel.

please show how a 308 147grain FMJ provides a greater wound channel because of its energy then a 223, 77 TMK when both appllied at their minimum expansion velocity.

 

[Reburn]

LOL. You pejoratively tell a user that they are wrong - energy means nothing, nada, zilch, and only velocity matters. Now you’re butthurt when called out and want to explain that you knew all along that energy mattered and I’m muddying waters . I should be less surprised by internet interactions.

For a single bullet geometry & material as well as a single impact object geometry and material, you could back out velocity as a metric if that’s what you wanted to do. In today’s age, anyone can quickly figure out remaining energy just as quick as remaining velocity, so I’m not sure why you’d pick velocity as a metric in that circumstance. However, mfg’s don’t list “impact velocity” on a bullet-by-bullet basis nor do they characterize impact material geometry and material. They broadly characterize entire lines. This is part of the reason you hear folks say such-and-such bullet hit a ____ animal above states impact velocity and didn’t perform.

Impact velocity is 100% a marketing term. Impact velocity is a way that manufacturers package relatively complex science and SELL it to consumers….our bullet has a lower number so it’s more better. Marketing departments are typically …..”generous” in how they characterize their own products.

Here we go AGAIN. You jump into a converstation and try to make it something its not. I'm not butthurt at all you just have a tendency to jump in and say something is wrong and then explian why jumping to a completely different topic. You do this often and are doing it now. I should be less surprised by your arrogance but it amazes me everytime. You are a knowledgable individual but you cant keep on track for a conversation and like to run down a rabbit hole nobody was talking about to try and use big words and formulas to make yourself appear smart.

As River rat was using energy as a metric he was wrong. It doenst translate into a larger wound channel or better killing power. This has been established.

Nobody has been talking about how much energy it takes to make a buller perform. I didnt choose to use velocity as the metric that a bullet performs the industry and everyone else did. I guess people could say this bullet performed will at this yardarge with this energy but that leave people guessing and having to back track and figure out what velocity it was at that it performed. That seems silly. Its much easier to say a 77 TMK performs reliably at 1800 FPS. The energy is the same at 1800 fps on a 77 grain bullet across all guns. However a 14.5" barrel 1800 fps equals a shorter yardage then a 22" barrel. The user can figure out their own yardage.

This is the only thing I agree with Marketing departments are typically …..”generous” in how they characterize their own products. But that goes across all industries not just bullets. Im sure they package it simply as FPS because they dont want to have similar converstation with 200 guys like you daily.

You typed yourself into a corner when you started saying this is how shooters and hunters talk about what impact velocity a bullet did or did not perform. If you have a issue with manufactors saying X bullets performs down to this veloicty take it up with them. As hunter and shooters I'm sure we will continue to use impact velocity as a metric and not impact energy as like I said. Listing energy just muddies the waters for people that havent grasped that greater energy doesnt translate into better wound channels.

 

[Nomosendero]

That illustrates some of the hang-ups with using small rifle cartridges , for one, and underperforming barnes bullets, for two. A larger cartridge , with the proper bullet choice, may have dropped that bou where it stood. Instead it got another 10 seconds of fun with a bullet hole in its shoulder. Ideally the bullets are supposed to drop all of their energy inside the target. Transfer all the energy possible. If it took 3 shots, and they all passed thru, that to me would indicate some issues I'd want to avoid. I have personally witnessed 2 black bear and a couple deer hit with barnes , and I will not load them any more. I'd rather hit the target animal with a large, rapidly expanding bullet, to transfer energy and put it down as quickly as possible. Very hard to beat many of the sierra, hornady , berger and nosler choices out there these days. Many of their offerings are much better suited for big game, in my opinion. Barnes may have its place, and they may kill animals, but i just don't believe they are the best tool for the job

Not to disagree with you at all, in fact I have see the same thing, esp. with the original Barnes. My question is, was the poor performance from a TSX or TTSX ? I ask because they are quite different in my experience!

 

[Yellowknife]

That illustrates some of the hang-ups with using small rifle cartridges , for one, and underperforming barnes bullets, for two. A larger cartridge , with the proper bullet choice, may have dropped that bou where it stood. Instead it got another 10 seconds of fun with a bullet hole in its shoulder. ...... Barnes may have its place, and they may kill animals, but i just don't believe they are the best tool for the job

As it happens, it did drop the bou where it stood. Traveled zero feet. Not a bad shot for a 12 yr old off his knee.

He actually used a "larger cartridge" on his last caribou with some softer lead bullets. The larger caliber was theoretically an improvement, but we found that the slightly larger/heavier gun that went with it required him to shoot with a solid rest. This was a significant handicap in the very dynamic world of caribou and involved a lot of repositioning and running around to get him lined up. Going back to the light and accurate .223 on this one meant he could make accurate shots from field positions. The caribou was trotting past us. I whistled at it. It paused to look. He put it on the ground. The whole thing was over faster and cleaner. No regrets at all.

The bullet(s) performed entirely as I expected. Barnes weren't my first choice... they were just my only choice this year. As usual, they got the job done.

 

[Formidilosus]

Dumb question but when you refer to 8208 your are referring to IMR 8208 XBR right?

Correct.

 

[Shraggs]

Work is the change in Kinetic Energy. Work is also Force times distance. Force over the bullet area is stress. Stress is related to strain (and ultimately yield and fracturing) via the modulus of elasticity. This is the simplified version, but energy is THE mechanism by which bullets expand. Geometry and material (characterized by the modulus of elasticity) play large roles as well.

Feel free to outline the formula(s) showing how velocity (not energy) deforms material.

Bullet manufacturers market bullets based on “impact velocity “ the same way the used to (and some still do) market MV and BC. We just have better tools to measure/calculate MV & BC today. Impact velocity is marketing.

Kenitc energy is not a real physics calculation, yes work energy momentum are. If go back to my school days.

I’m amazed how much information with photography and yet here this is.

So, an arrow with 60 lbs if BS kenetic energy won’t kill then….

I have never ever seen or read a bullet mfg sell speed either, wth…. Rather some real smart engineers who design Bullets Have specified parameters of how they will perform as described by speed.

 

[Formidilosus]

LOL. You pejoratively tell a user that they are wrong - energy means nothing, nada, zilch, and only velocity matters. Now you’re butthurt when called out and want to explain that you knew all along that energy mattered and I’m muddying waters . I should be less surprised by internet interactions.

For a single bullet geometry & material as well as a single impact object geometry and material, you could back out velocity as a metric if that’s what you wanted to do. In today’s age, anyone can quickly figure out remaining energy just as quick as remaining velocity, so I’m not sure why you’d pick velocity as a metric in that circumstance. However, mfg’s don’t list “impact velocity” on a bullet-by-bullet basis nor do they characterize impact material geometry and material. They broadly characterize entire lines. This is part of the reason you hear folks say such-and-such bullet hit a ____ animal above states impact velocity and didn’t perform.

Impact velocity is 100% a marketing term. Impact velocity is a way that manufacturers package relatively complex science and SELL it to consumers….our bullet has a lower number so it’s more better. Marketing departments are typically …..”generous” in how they characterize their own products.

Jesus Christ dude. There is an entire publicly available library about medically validated, peer reviewed, empirical studies and evidence over the last 60 years on wounding and terminal ballistics. It has been discussed multiple times on this thread alone. Ft-lbs of energy is not a wounding mechanism, it does not and can not tell you how deep a bullet will penetrate, nor how wide a wound it will leave, nor the overall shape of that wound. Velocity isn’t a marketing thing- it’s literally how bullets are designed to upset. For the subject of this thread- all TMK’s of every caliber and weight will upset at 1,750-1,800fps yet they have VERY different energy numbers at those velocities.

 

[bsnedeker]

Kenitc energy is not a real physics calculation, .

LOL.....what? As someone with a degree in physics let me assure you that you are wrong!



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Shraggs]

LOL.....what? As someone with a degree in physics let me assure you that you are wrong!



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Yes, in haste typing certainly could been more clear.

pnwgatir and form have better conveyed that this energy metric does not predict wounding.

 

[Maverick1]

52 pages and over 1000 posts, spanning over two years.

Lots of good information and dialog here.

I wonder if anyone has read this thread in it's entirety?

(The OP is still participating, on page 52!)

Still has a ways to go to catch up to the one photo a day thread, though.

 

[TxxAgg]

^^^ I've read it in it's entirety. Twice.

 

[b_comptonwild]

Somebody should tell our military that .223 trumps a .30! Jk.
Your .223 should be great for well placed shots on deer and bear.

 

[Formidilosus]

Somebody should tell our military that .223 trumps a .30! Jk.
Your .223 should be great for well placed shots on deer and bear.

Not sure what you’re getting at here? The US military (and nearly everyone else) uses the 5.56 or 5.45mm as their primary arm, not a 30cal.

 

[Nomosendero]

^^^ I've read it in it's entirety. Twice.

What did it say? Just kidding!
Actually this is one of the most informative threads I have ever read!