Energy delivered "to the animal" from a projectile

[Spikebuck]

I often see the insinuation that if a bullet stays in an animal it's somehow better than one that passes through because it "delivered all it's energy in the deer."

Now I know that there are different shapes, sizes, weights, speeds, how a bullet deforms at given speeds, etc. that have an impact here, but in general it takes more energy to keep pushing further through given the same path and projectile. So if the path of resistance is the same and a certain sized roundball is shot into that path with 50 grs of powder behind it and stops 1/2 way through the deer, it delivered all it's energy. But if that same ball is shot with 90 grains of powder behind it, it's moving faster and has more energy to deliver and let's say it passes completely through. That ball delivered the same amount of energy to get to the point where the other one stopped, but it could keep on going delivering more energy and damaging more organ tissue and coming out the other side increasing external bleeding to help with a blood trail and another air hole into the lungs to collapse them. If the animal was DRT because of the first bullet shot with 50 grs, it would also be DRT from the second bullet that delivered the same amount of energy to the same point, but continued on and through. When it comes to archery or traditional muzzleloader killed animals I believe DRT, or any other quickly lethal result, is a function of the path and damage vs whether a bullet expended all of it's energy or not. The longer the path the better.

Which would you prefer? The one that delivered all of it's energy or the one that did not deliver all of it's energy and kept on going and exiting doing more damage?

My point here isn't to shoot more powder to get more energy for a given size projectile or to negate the effectiveness a lower charge can provide. It's to illustrate that given the same path and projectile weight/shape, the amount of energy delivered to the animal to get to a certain point in the body is the same, but if one of those doesn't expend all the energy it possesses and goes all the way through, it delivered MORE energy to the animal than the one that stopped in the animal. If one hits the animal in the brain, spine, or a shoulder nerve center, it's DRT and this conversation is a moot point. But, since most shots are not DRT and the animal is going to run, it's better to have a projectile that has damaged everything possible and passed out the other side, IMO.

My preference is pass-thru. I don't want my bullet to stop in the animal....I want it to keep going doing more damage and creating more blood on the ground.

 

[Sparkitoff]

I agree with you... that it if a projectile has energy to keep going that energy is shed "in the animal" If it exits, whatever is remaining obviously has no effect on the animal. I think archery. If an arrow goes two lungs it should be deadly. If it passes through it still cut both lungs, but cut more skin and tissue and let blood out another hole. I'll take the exit hole with any projectile. As a retired professional hunter I've seen seen both scenarios hundreds of times with many projectiles. I can't say there have been more DRT's when there is not an exit. There's a booklet that chronicles 1000 shots at animals with data including caliber, bullet type, range, species, reaction, shot placement and what happened after the shot. This data supports that a pass-through is more immediately effective than a round that remains inside the animal.

 

[griffiga]

Either way that big bullet does a lot of damage. I've had some go clear through and others stay inside. Most of the "stay insides" hit some large bone or something. I've read a lot of articles on bullet energy and minimum amount needed to cleanly kill game such as deer and elk. In the modern weapon world of high velocity bullets speeds, that minimum amount is around 1000 foot pounds of energy. A 50 caliber ball of 220 grains at a velocity of 1800 fps equates to just under 1600 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle and out to 100 yards drops down to around 500. What those high speed, small bore advocates don't take into consideration is momentum and the size of the hole. I have killed more deer and elk with a .45 caliber, 405 grain lead cast bullet from a .45-70 traveling at 1200 fps. which is similar to a 50 caliber minie or maxi ball coming out of a muzzle loader. On the other hand, I have shot game with high velocity guns and had the game run for up to 100 yards or better when the energy at impact was 2 or 3 time higher. None of my .45-70 struck animals have ran more than a few yards with most dropping in their tracks.

 

[Old Hawkeye]

I agree! Energy doesn't kill an animal, blood loss does. The "Kinetic" energy theory folks are mainly in the high velocity magnum CF camp. I've had much better luck, no matter if it is CF or ML using heavy for caliber bullets at moderate velocity. Penetration into & through the vital area of a game animal is much more important than speed or energy. You are much more likely to accomplish that with a stoutly constructed bullet traveling at moderate speed than with a lighter high velocity pill that deforms or disintegrates on impact expending "all it's energy". Lighter bullets traveling at faster speeds just don't cut it with me. Two holes from a pass through is much more to my liking. Just my two cents.

 

[Walkingeagle]

Two holes are better than one!
Walk

 

[Griz44Mag]

I often see the insinuation that if a bullet stays in an animal it's somehow better than one that passes through because it "delivered all it's energy in the deer."

Now I know that there are different shapes, sizes, weights, speeds, how a bullet deforms at given speeds, etc. that have an impact here, but in general it takes more energy to keep pushing further through given the same path and projectile. So if the path of resistance is the same and a certain sized roundball is shot into that path with 50 grs of powder behind it and stops 1/2 way through the deer, it delivered all it's energy. But if that same ball is shot with 90 grains of powder behind it, it's moving faster and has more energy to deliver and let's say it passes completely through. That ball delivered the same amount of energy to get to the point where the other one stopped, but it could keep on going delivering more energy and damaging more organ tissue and coming out the other side increasing external bleeding to help with a blood trail and another air hole into the lungs to collapse them. If the animal was DRT because of the first bullet shot with 50 grs, it would also be DRT from the second bullet that delivered the same amount of energy to the same point, but continued on and through. When it comes to archery or traditional muzzleloader killed animals I believe DRT, or any other quickly lethal result, is a function of the path and damage vs whether a bullet expended all of it's energy or not. The longer the path the better.

Which would you prefer? The one that delivered all of it's energy or the one that did not deliver all of it's energy and kept on going and exiting doing more damage?

My point here isn't to shoot more powder to get more energy for a given size projectile or to negate the effectiveness a lower charge can provide. It's to illustrate that given the same path and projectile weight/shape, the amount of energy delivered to the animal to get to a certain point in the body is the same, but if one of those doesn't expend all the energy it possesses and goes all the way through, it delivered MORE energy to the animal than the one that stopped in the animal. If one hits the animal in the brain, spine, or a shoulder nerve center, it's DRT and this conversation is a moot point. But, since most shots are not DRT and the animal is going to run, it's better to have a projectile that has damaged everything possible and passed out the other side, IMO.

My preference is pass-thru. I don't want my bullet to stop in the animal....I want it to keep going doing more damage and creating more blood on the ground.

I agree that a pass through is the best shot. Most of the hunting muzzleloaders make a hole bigger than most "unmentionable" make in the first place. A shot through both lungs low in the chest cavity run a higher chance of hitting vital circulation parts, arteries and heart. The ones that don't hit heart will cause a lot of blood loss in a very short period of time. Personally - I do not ever take a shot that will not go through both lungs. I do not do frontals or ass shots - EVER. First I feel it is unethical and second it destroys a lot of meat.
I have never lost an animal shot this way, the pass through shot is my prefered method.

 

[sussexmuzllodr]

I have found out that using a T/C Maxi Hunter gets good results with 50 grains. A slow moving freight train of sorts.

 

[appalichian hunter]

It seems to me that the closer you are to the animal the more energy delivered to the shot, never really thought much about impact energy but would not velocity equal energy.

 

[SDSmlf]

It seems to me that the closer you are to the animal the more energy delivered to the shot, never really thought much about impact energy but would not velocity equal energy.

Velocity squared times the bullet weight equals kinetic energy.

 

[griffiga]

Velocity squared times the bullet weight equals kinetic energy.

then divide that by 450436 and you'll get foot pounds of energy.

 

[Old Hawkeye]

It seems to me that the closer you are to the animal the more energy delivered to the shot, never really thought much about impact energy but would not velocity equal energy.

Force (energy) is a function of both mass & velocity. More mass at the same velocity delivers more force (energy). Likewise, the same mass with a higher velocity has more force (energy). Kinda like two ways to skin a cat. Finding a balance between mass & velocity to get optimum performance from a particular projectile is the goal. Too high a velocity can damage the bullet so it won't do as intended. Too low a velocity can also hinder effectiveness. My experience has been that heavy for caliber bullets at moderate velocity perform the best on live game in the real world.

 

[Spikebuck]

...would not velocity equal energy.

In the context you quoted about being closer, which assumes the same "ammo", yes it does.

But for all, my point in this is the statement about "delivered all it's energy" which some seem to feel is a key element of a quick kill. I wanted to rule out various shapes of projectiles being compared (eg:....not comparing round ball to a conical) to avoid the comparison of weight on energy or shape on penetration/resistance, etc.

I'm saying that the exact round (a .530 round ball, for example) that has more energy because it is hitting faster (I believe the only way it could have more energy) will impart exactly the same total energy at "X" amount of penetration as the slower round that stopped at "X" so the killing power of the one that stopped at X cannot be more. It might not make a difference in that dead is dead, but I'll take the continued penetration and potential for more destruction.

Appalichian Hunter does make a great point...we can also increase penetration, all other things being equal, by being closer, since speed will be higher, thus having any given projectile hitting with more energy.

 

[Spikebuck]

My experience has been that heavy for caliber bullets at moderate velocity perform the best on live game in the real world.

Arrow or bullets. I think the above means we believe in momentum over kinetic energy as the measure of penetration capabilities.

I was a bowhunter for 25 years before I touched a big game gun and with arrows I always shot HEAVY arrows and unless I hit something really hard, like the top of the shoulder, always got pass throughs. Watch bowhunting shows on TV now with the 350 fps+ bows shooting little darning needles for arrows...the penetration is very often atrocious!

 

[SDSmlf]

then divide that by 450436 and you'll get foot pounds of energy.

If you use velocity in feet per second and bullet weight in grains.

Calculation for muzzle energy:

Vel x Vel x Bullet Weight = ft. lbs.
450,435​

 

[Sparkitoff]

If anyone wants the booklet "1000 Tags Filled" in a searchable PDF format, PM me. For $5 I can email it to you. There is some muzzleloader data as well as those self-contained thingys.

 

[VADSLRAM]

If all was equal then it wouldn't matter. But all things aren't equal. A bullet has X joules total, If it uses 75% of that energy to go all the way through than 25% of potential damage is wasted on the tree(hopefully) behind the animal. Vs 100% of that energy disrupting vital organs.
While blood loss is a deadly condition, vital organ disruption is far more efficient. That's the rational behind hollow points. The wound cavity is much larger than the actual bore sized hole. The hydraulic over pressure created by an impact can shred blood vessels and nerve connections.
Taken to an extreme, an ice pick can put a hole in a heart and that will kill an animal eventually but a hammer to the same organ will stop it beating and drop the animal in feet.
Back in the early 70s we sent my father and grandfather on a bear hunting trip. Dad had a 35 Rem, Grandpa had the 30-06 I still own. Dad shot his side on first and 3 more times and it traveled ~50 feet TOWARDS my dad's stand before it dropped. The first bullet went through a lung, stomach, and damaged the liver all through and through. the other 3 were all meat shots from a panic situation. Grandpa got a good shot 1/4 on that shattered both the shoulder blade and drove pieces of bone and bullet into the heart, It dropped on the spot. Dad's trophy was just the head because a lot of the pelt was holed. We made the iconic rug with head out of grandpa's because it was just a small hole at the shoulder.

Bottom line the more energy you can impart to the target , the more likely you will bring home meat.

 

[Spikebuck]

If all was equal then it wouldn't matter. But all things aren't equal.

Bottom line the more energy you can impart to the target , the more likely you will bring home meat.

I don't disagree at all, but I think my point was missed. The conversation is about the concept that a projectile that stays in the animal is somehow more deadly than the same one that passes through "on the same path." I'm making the projectile and path the same as that makes "energy" level the ONLY variable in the discussion, along with what that increased energy level allows to happen.

I didn't say EVERYTHING was equal, in fact in my example, I said that the speed would be different and I was keeping the projectile and path the same. Higher speed with any given projectile would mean more energy whether one subscribes to momentum or kinetic energy. I'm not talking about a round ball vs a conical or a .440 round ball vs a .530 round ball, or a round, flat, or hollow point conical difference.

My point is, that for any projectile it expends energy at a certain rate as it takes a given path through an animal. If that projectile stops 1/2 way through it didn't have enough energy to damage everything that it could have. It may have been very effective, but the same projectile, with MORE energy, taking exactly the same path will expend the same amount of energy as the first to get to the point the first one stopped, but the advantage is that having MORE energy will allow it to continue to push on through further, damaging more tissue, imparting MORE energy to the animal, and potentially opening another external hole for blood to flow from. This means that the lower energy version cannot be more effective just because it stayed in the body.

So, I think we're saying the same thing except you're introducing a discussion I intentionally wanted to avoid, and that is the effectiveness of the types of projectiles themselves. The purpose of my post is to dispel the myth that just because a given projectile stays in the body and imparts all the energy it had does not make it more lethal than if it followed the same initial path, but had more energy and was able to keep on going all the way through. ☮

 

[Sparkitoff]

I have witnessed 3 occasions that I remember (there may have been more) where two animals were shot at once - one shot. All all three cases the first animal obviously was a pass-through and the second stopped the projectile. In one case the first animal ran a bit and the second dropped right there, but in the second case it was reverse. The first one dropped and the second one ran. In the third case they both dropped. I don't think anything was proven or stood out. NOTE: There were other two-fers but those I remember passed through both animals.

 

[Spikebuck]

I have witnessed 3 occasions that I remember (there may have been more) where two animals were shot at once - one shot. All all three cases the first animal obviously was a pass-through and the second stopped the projectile. In one case the first animal ran a bit and the second dropped right there, but in the second case it was reverse. The first one dropped and the second one ran. In the third case they both dropped. I don't think anything was proven or stood out.

Interesting observation. Most of us will never see a "two-fer" ever, much less several of them. In fact, in a normal hunting situation, one is trying to avoid shooting when another animal is behind the one we want to shoot. But with your background, I'm sure you have seen just about everything that can happen!

Part of the difference, I assume, would be that the path of the projectile (what was hit inside) was probably different between the front and back animal. In my experience it's sometimes hard to know why some animals fall over and some run a little and some a lot with seemingly the same hit. I've always said it's a game where sometimes fractions of an inch can really matter.

 

[rodwha]

In the context you quoted about being closer, which assumes the same "ammo", yes it does.

But for all, my point in this is the statement about "delivered all it's energy" which some seem to feel is a key element of a quick kill. I wanted to rule out various shapes of projectiles being compared (eg:....not comparing round ball to a conical) to avoid the comparison of weight on energy or shape on penetration/resistance, etc.

I'm saying that the exact round (a .530 round ball, for example) that has more energy because it is hitting faster (I believe the only way it could have more energy) will impart exactly the same total energy at "X" amount of penetration as the slower round that stopped at "X" so the killing power of the one that stopped at X cannot be more. It might not make a difference in that dead is dead, but I'll take the continued penetration and potential for more destruction.

Appalichian Hunter does make a great point...we can also increase penetration, all other things being equal, by being closer, since speed will be higher, thus having any given projectile hitting with more energy.

Actually they won’t have exuded the same amount of energy at X point in the animal. We know that the faster a projectile moves the more it pushes out of the way. The damage is greater at X point by the faster projectile IF it is going fast enough. It seems that a ball under 1100 FPS or so just makes a caliber sized hole so the damage might be the same at 1000 FPS as it is at 600, but get that ball moving fast enough and that damage will get greater.

Regardless I don’t buy the “dumped all the energy” stuff. 2 holes leaking is good in my mind.