+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Minimum Energy



  1. #1
    fk [OP]
    fk is offline
    Site Contributor Contributing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Derby, Kansas
    Posts
    1,402
    Member #
    1845
    Thanked
    21 times

    Minimum Energy


    I don't know who set the figures but they sound pretty good to me. Energy needed for a clean kill for some of the following animals and not all classified too many to list, just a few samples:

    1) Deer & Black Bear 1000 lbs minimum striking force.
    2) Elk & Medium game 1500 lbs minimum striking force.
    3) Grizzly Bears 2100 lbs minimum striking force.

    This kinda goes with having a good well placed clean shot. I wonder how many of us follow this strategy.
    Another thing I have heard over the grapevine is you don't hunt in Alaska unless you carry a bear rifle, that makes
    a lot of sense.
    I wonder how many of the old style rifles don't meet this criteria and since it is range critical it would eliminate
    some of them. I know there are a lot of guys who hunt bigger game with smaller rifles and I wonder if this doesn't hurt our hunting reputation. We need all the good press we can use in these days of doom and gloom with the new administration trying not to help us.

    "fk"
    NRA Life Member
    US Army Veteran
    Team 32 Special #13 (little scary huh)

  2. #2
    Gun Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Checotah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,473
    Member #
    2633
    Thanked
    967 times

    Re: Minimum Energy

    If i were to believe in those figures then the .243 is a great elk round out to 150 yards and the 45-70 just barely qualifies as a deer gun at the same distance. Good press comes from the group that hunts and shoots. Bad press comes from the group that could care less about the first group and I could care less about the second group.
    SI VIS PACEM--PARA BELLUM

  3. #3
    Sidewinder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    181
    Member #
    5762
    Thanked
    1 times

    Re: Minimum Energy

    That would also mean nobody should be shooting past 300 yards with most rifle at most game animals!! And no pistol could be used to kill any thing! So all those that have killed deer/elk and Griz with the 44 Mag had no business shooting them! I don't go by these as standards for taking game! Bullet placement and penertration is way more important!!

  4. #4
    Contributing Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    7,069
    Member #
    373
    Thanked
    5203 times

    Re: Minimum Energy

    I think the "energy" figures are pretty ridiculous. A good bullet, placed in the vitals, does the job.

    The "energy" of a bullet is a mathematical formula, that may or may not have much bearing on killing power.

    For instance, we know from experience that the standard 240 gr .44 mag load from a revolver does a fine job on wild boar, deer, black bear and similar size game, yet it only churns up about 800 ft lbs of "energy" at the muzzle and only about 665 ft lbs at 50 yards...

    Maybe, in a very general way, the figures tell us that it's a good idea to use bigger, more powerful guns on bigger, stronger game. I can buy that one. I do think it's pretty silly though to try to place a numerical value on it... Have seen deer taken cleanly with little .223's and have seen the big bad .350 Rem mag need several finishing shots to anchor an average size mule deer. Why? Shot placement.

    My son with his little 6mm Remington tossing mere 95 grain bullets at a modest 3000 fps kills mule deer like lightning. It's the smallest cartridge at our annual deer camp, but the young man and his little rifle have proven instantly lethal out at 275 yards.

    Look how danged deadly an arrow is... With very little energy produced. But the razor sharp arrowhead is a wonderful killing instrument.

    FWIW, Guy




  5. #5
    FWiedner
    Guest

    Re: Minimum Energy

    In the spirit of giving all reasonable ideas suitable consideration, I have a great deal of respect for energy figures for no other reason than that they can tell me a good deal about catrtridges that I have never fired, but they aren't particularly revealing with regard to "field" performance.

    I personally use a similar table of energy as "rule of thumb" when selecting a firearm as suitable for any given hunt.

    BUT (again)...

    Quote Originally Posted by M700
    A good bullet, placed in the vitals, does the job.
    ... pretty much says it all.


  6. #6
    Site Contributor Contributing Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The Evergreen State
    Posts
    2,107
    Member #
    929
    Thanked
    2911 times

    Re: Minimum Energy

    The fastest kills I've seen on Black bear where with an Arrow - hit the off switch and fell right into his shadow - and with the 45-70 using a beartooth Pile Driver Jr driven at mid level levergun velocity - spun in reaction to the shot and dropped. Conversely the most tracking I've ever had to do was on bears hit with 30-06 and 300 Win Mag. The longest deer track was with a 7mm.

    For hunting I've found slow bullets that make big holes work really well.

    Your mileage may vary...
    "The secret to life is to be alive. To live ultimately by one's own hand and one's own independent devices." - Ted Nugent

  7. #7
    fk [OP]
    fk is offline
    Site Contributor Contributing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Derby, Kansas
    Posts
    1,402
    Member #
    1845
    Thanked
    21 times

    Re: Minimum Energy

    I still feel that there has to be a common thread on energy needed to humanely kill an animal. Your sitting with a rifle that has 1000lbs of energy at 300yds and you have an elk standing should you or should you not take the shot. I wouldn't take the shot at that far away even with a good hit it may be possible that you just wound the animal instead of a nice clean kill. I'm sure I wouldn't want to take on a big ole grizzly without a big ole bullet that has at least 2100lbs of energy. Remember these probably are just minimums there is not maximum. Anyway thats my humble opinion and opinions are like @@@$$$$#$ every body has one.

    fk
    NRA Life Member
    US Army Veteran
    Team 32 Special #13 (little scary huh)

  8. #8
    Esteemed Sharpshooter
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,664
    Member #
    4690
    Thanked
    462 times

    Re: Minimum Energy

    Quote Originally Posted by FWiedner
    In the spirit of giving all reasonable ideas suitable consideration, I have a great deal of respect for energy figures for no other reason than that they can tell me a good deal about catrtridges that I have never fired, but they aren't particularly revealing with regard to "field" performance.

    I personally use a similar table of energy as "rule of thumb" when selecting a firearm as suitable for any given hunt.

    BUT (again)...

    Quote Originally Posted by M700
    A good bullet, placed in the vitals, does the job.
    ... pretty much says it all.

    +1, and they are just numbers. Joe
    Life NRA
    USN-Iron Men on wooden Ships, minesweepers.
    MSO 488 and MSO437
    Team 45-70 #394
    Team 39 #96
    Team 60 #35
    Team Old Pharts #44 "Pharty-Four"
    Life member RMEF
    American Legion

  9. #9
    Sidewinder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    181
    Member #
    5762
    Thanked
    1 times

    Re: Minimum Energy

    Well lets look at it this way- before all the big Mag craze the good old '06 was king in Alaska! The 30-30 took every manner of deer! and before that arrows were the weapon of choice by the native American!! Alot of folks pu-pu you if you show up with a Non mag firearm at camp. But the bottom line is if you stay within the capabilities of the firearm it will kill just as good as anything else! I would use my '06 on anything in NA with the right bullet! The way I see it 100-150 yards is a long shot on Griz /Brown Bear with any gun!

  10. #10
    Gun Wizard
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,682
    Member #
    8241
    Thanked
    2865 times

    Re: Minimum Energy

    One more case in point.
    A 240 gr bullet fired from a 44 mag pistol has a great reputation as a solid game stopper. The same bullet fired from a 444 with an increase of several hundred feet in velocity, has a reputation of blowing up on deer with massive surface wounds and no penetration. The 444 bullet has more energy, but that increased energy has negative consequences. I would think that if one were to rate different performance aspects for cleanly killing game, in my opinion would look like this.

    1) bullet placement
    2) bullet placement
    3) bullet placement
    4) bullet performance
    5) bullet energy at impact
    6) refer to number 1
    7) the price of tea in China
    Oh...Give me a home where the buffalo roam and the deer and antelope play.


Home | Forum | Active Topics | What's New | Subscribed Threads

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search tags for this page

alaska muzzle energy minimum for bear

,

bullet energy needed for deer

,

energy needed to kill a deer

,
hunting how much energy is required to kill an elk
,

lethal energy to kill big game

,
minimum bullet energy for deer hunting
,
minimum bullet force for hunting
,

minimum energy for deer hunting

,
minimum energy needed for deer hunting
,
minimum energy needed yo kill black bear
,

minimum energy to kill deer

,
minimum killing energy
,
muzzle energy for grizzly or elk
Click on a term to search for related topics.