-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Minimum energy???
- Thread starter Aline
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
The discussion of 'energy' at the target can be tricky...
IMO, I think we get conditioned from years of focus on very high speed, very powerful centerfire cartridges that deliver gargantuan amounts of energy at hundreds of yards to put down all sorts of sized animals in spite of less than proper shot placement, just from the massive amounts of energy impact shock value to the overall body & systems.
And it's natural to think somewhat in terms of "wallop weight" delivered by our muzzleloaders, but I think it's a lot less of a factor than in the centerfire world, because the maximum energy we have to play with is already so much less to begin with, that shot placement has to be the premium consideration with muzzleloaders...exactly as it is with broadhead placement when bow hunting.
In practical terms, a well placed ball will pass quite easily through the heart & lung area...the softest tissue in a deer...and really require relatively little "wallop weight" type energy to do so...we just need enough energy for thorough penetration through these soft tissue areas... and the animal expires from hemmoraging / lack of oxygen to the brain...(as opposed to gargantuan amounts of overall body trauma from the shock of a ton of energy transfer) ...just like the results caused by a well placed broadhead.
To me, 300-400 ft/lbs energy is the minimum "working range" of energy that will easily take deer with a well placed heart & lung shot...the factors to deliver this range of energy to the target are projectile weight, velocity, and distance.
IMO, I think we get conditioned from years of focus on very high speed, very powerful centerfire cartridges that deliver gargantuan amounts of energy at hundreds of yards to put down all sorts of sized animals in spite of less than proper shot placement, just from the massive amounts of energy impact shock value to the overall body & systems.
And it's natural to think somewhat in terms of "wallop weight" delivered by our muzzleloaders, but I think it's a lot less of a factor than in the centerfire world, because the maximum energy we have to play with is already so much less to begin with, that shot placement has to be the premium consideration with muzzleloaders...exactly as it is with broadhead placement when bow hunting.
In practical terms, a well placed ball will pass quite easily through the heart & lung area...the softest tissue in a deer...and really require relatively little "wallop weight" type energy to do so...we just need enough energy for thorough penetration through these soft tissue areas... and the animal expires from hemmoraging / lack of oxygen to the brain...(as opposed to gargantuan amounts of overall body trauma from the shock of a ton of energy transfer) ...just like the results caused by a well placed broadhead.
To me, 300-400 ft/lbs energy is the minimum "working range" of energy that will easily take deer with a well placed heart & lung shot...the factors to deliver this range of energy to the target are projectile weight, velocity, and distance.
I think that was an excellant post Roundball, one has to think outside of the modern bullet box when ML hunting. I would think you could kill a deer quite humanely by piercing his heart with a fencing foil and the ft/lb of energy exerted in the process would be very small.
There's a lot more to it than raw energy. My recurve only generates about 45 ft lbs of arrow energy, but can kill a deer from massive hemmoraging in 15 seconds with a double lung shot.
As you noted, a round ball sheds its energy rapidly. Shoot enough gun, get up close, wait for the right moment, pick a spot, give thanks for success.
If you're worried enough to be consulting a table while hunting you probably haven't brought enough gun or you're too far away from the prey.
As you noted, a round ball sheds its energy rapidly. Shoot enough gun, get up close, wait for the right moment, pick a spot, give thanks for success.
If you're worried enough to be consulting a table while hunting you probably haven't brought enough gun or you're too far away from the prey.
This is from the Lyman Muzzleloader Handbook
.50 caliber muzzleloader with a 28" barrel...
.50 caliber roundball .498 diameter...
90 grains of FFFg gives: 1'796 fps...
Muzzle energy: 1'287 (FT/lbs)...
Energy at 100 yards: 430 (FT/lbs)...
There is 654 (FT/lbs) energy at 50 yards with this load, more than enough to dispatch a deer humanely...
In order to hit the 800 (FT/lbs) energy at 50 yards mark, the ball must be pushed to 1'900 fps or above...
That, according to the Lyman Muzzleloader Handbook, tranlate to loads of 100 grains of FFFg or better...
.50 caliber muzzleloader with a 28" barrel...
.50 caliber roundball .498 diameter...
90 grains of FFFg gives: 1'796 fps...
Muzzle energy: 1'287 (FT/lbs)...
Energy at 100 yards: 430 (FT/lbs)...
There is 654 (FT/lbs) energy at 50 yards with this load, more than enough to dispatch a deer humanely...
In order to hit the 800 (FT/lbs) energy at 50 yards mark, the ball must be pushed to 1'900 fps or above...
That, according to the Lyman Muzzleloader Handbook, tranlate to loads of 100 grains of FFFg or better...
I've always thought the minimun energy required to kill a deer was 500 ft/lbs., not 800. But, no matter. I use a very UN-scientific method to determine if my loads have enough power to do the job.
I set up a 2X6, 2X8, or 2Xwhatever, and shoot it. I figure if my roundball can pass completely through 2 inches of pine then it can certainly kill a deer.
If the ball passes through the pine at 50 yds. I then try it at 100 yds. etc. When the range is so great that the ball can not pass completely through the 2 inches of pine, then I know to keep my shots within a lessor range.
I usually hunt deer with a .50 (.490)patched rd. ball, and 70 grs. of FFF. I try to limit my shots to 75 yds. or less.
I set up a 2X6, 2X8, or 2Xwhatever, and shoot it. I figure if my roundball can pass completely through 2 inches of pine then it can certainly kill a deer.
If the ball passes through the pine at 50 yds. I then try it at 100 yds. etc. When the range is so great that the ball can not pass completely through the 2 inches of pine, then I know to keep my shots within a lessor range.
I usually hunt deer with a .50 (.490)patched rd. ball, and 70 grs. of FFF. I try to limit my shots to 75 yds. or less.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 14,767
- Reaction score
- 319
I've always wondered what yardstick anyone uses to measure 800 ft/lbs, 1000 ft/lbs, 1200 ft/lbs or whatever number they pick to support their favorite theory. Sounds like back-engineering their favorite prejudice to me.
Based upon shooting literally hundreds of deer with more calibers than most people ever own, I've got to say BUNK to any such numbers. It's all about ft/lbs of skill and common sense. Give just about any bullet enough penetration and land it in the right place to cause sufficient hemorage or disrupt the nervous system, and it's going to kill the deer.
There are two things at work here- One above board, and the other entirely suspicious. Above board, folks are trying to build in a margin of error for bad marksmanship, bad judgement and bad luck- a worst case scenario, if you will. The suspicious motive is the need to sell the latest jeewhizz wonder gun by playing off the insecurities of most hunters about their ability to shoot right when the chips are down.
On the practical side, it's true that you can easily kill deer with decent placement of a 22 long rifle bullet. I've seen it done out to 50 yards, though a lung shot at that range does take some tracking skill, compared to the same shot at 25 yards. Heck, here in Alaska one of the most popular polar bear guns with Alaska Natives way back when was a 22 Hornet! They don't hunt white bears now, but for killing gigantic walrus, the 223 is the favortie round. But these folks are hellacious good shots.
If even 400 ft/lbs is any kind of realistic measure of killing power for deer, how cum handgun rounds like the 44 Special and 45 Long Colt are so effective way past 50 yards with bullets down around 750 fps at the muzzle? I will acknowledge a big difference in performance between a flat-nosed bullet and one with a round nosed one, but in my personal experience you are going to have a tough time telling the difference between them and a 44 mag leaving the muzzle at 1350 or so, at least as far out as the 72 measured yards I've shot deer with a 45 LC. None of the "experts" want to give the 357 mag any legs as a deer gun, but with good bullet placement, it is a stone killer.
The most important measures I have found are foot/pounds of common sense, skill and self-restraint. Shoot enough to be able to consistently place the bullets where they belong. Learn and respect the limits on your marksmanship skills. Grow up enough to pass up marginal shots. Get out in the field and learn how to hunt and put yourself within reasonable range for you skills, while passing up marginal shots you encounter along the way.
Do all that and the size of the hole in your barrel isn't going to mean a lot between you and the deer, no matter what any Former Drip (expert) says. By the same token, if you do enough shooting to get good with a gun, you really have no reason to be afraid of a little more recoil and press your luck by using a really low-powered arm.
Can you guess the original question stomps on my sensibilities?
Based upon shooting literally hundreds of deer with more calibers than most people ever own, I've got to say BUNK to any such numbers. It's all about ft/lbs of skill and common sense. Give just about any bullet enough penetration and land it in the right place to cause sufficient hemorage or disrupt the nervous system, and it's going to kill the deer.
There are two things at work here- One above board, and the other entirely suspicious. Above board, folks are trying to build in a margin of error for bad marksmanship, bad judgement and bad luck- a worst case scenario, if you will. The suspicious motive is the need to sell the latest jeewhizz wonder gun by playing off the insecurities of most hunters about their ability to shoot right when the chips are down.
On the practical side, it's true that you can easily kill deer with decent placement of a 22 long rifle bullet. I've seen it done out to 50 yards, though a lung shot at that range does take some tracking skill, compared to the same shot at 25 yards. Heck, here in Alaska one of the most popular polar bear guns with Alaska Natives way back when was a 22 Hornet! They don't hunt white bears now, but for killing gigantic walrus, the 223 is the favortie round. But these folks are hellacious good shots.
If even 400 ft/lbs is any kind of realistic measure of killing power for deer, how cum handgun rounds like the 44 Special and 45 Long Colt are so effective way past 50 yards with bullets down around 750 fps at the muzzle? I will acknowledge a big difference in performance between a flat-nosed bullet and one with a round nosed one, but in my personal experience you are going to have a tough time telling the difference between them and a 44 mag leaving the muzzle at 1350 or so, at least as far out as the 72 measured yards I've shot deer with a 45 LC. None of the "experts" want to give the 357 mag any legs as a deer gun, but with good bullet placement, it is a stone killer.
The most important measures I have found are foot/pounds of common sense, skill and self-restraint. Shoot enough to be able to consistently place the bullets where they belong. Learn and respect the limits on your marksmanship skills. Grow up enough to pass up marginal shots. Get out in the field and learn how to hunt and put yourself within reasonable range for you skills, while passing up marginal shots you encounter along the way.
Do all that and the size of the hole in your barrel isn't going to mean a lot between you and the deer, no matter what any Former Drip (expert) says. By the same token, if you do enough shooting to get good with a gun, you really have no reason to be afraid of a little more recoil and press your luck by using a really low-powered arm.
Can you guess the original question stomps on my sensibilities?
Guest
BrownBear,.... I think you hit tha "nail" squarely on tha "head"!! :applause: 
Regardless of, what some folks would like us to believe,.... critters ain't any more "bullet-proof" today, then they were 200 years ago!! It's the hunter's "skill/judgement factor" thet determines "how deadly" a weapon is!!
Regardless of, what some folks would like us to believe,.... critters ain't any more "bullet-proof" today, then they were 200 years ago!! It's the hunter's "skill/judgement factor" thet determines "how deadly" a weapon is!!
TwoShadows
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 0
Amen, Brown Bear...pass the hat!...Most folks are gonna be surprised when finding out the powder charges of the ol boys shooting/hunting way back when. We are notorious heavy charge shooters ain't we? What we use to barely "break paper" is about what the everyday hunter used. I doubt that a longhunter carried enough powder with him to be shooting 200 deer with a 80-90 grain load when he went on his "long hunts".
Powder was a well sought after item in the Rocky Mountains and remote areas, the supplies wagons only came west once a year...
When you are out of powder, your muzzleloader became as usefull as a club...
If it was going to last them a whole season (year), it must be conserved...
Guest
Another problem with energy numbers, other than the excellent ones mentioned by Brown Bear, roundball, et al, is that the in formula for calculating energy velocity is squared. That gives velocity an unfair and definitely skewed advantage. If one has to resort to numbers for the effectiveness of his/her, rifle/handgun they are much better off using John Taylors "pounds-feet" formula where the shape and caliber of the projectile are part of the formula as well as the weight. Elmer Keith also devised a similar formula. For simple comparison, a 100 gr., 243 Win. has more energy at 100 yards than a 405 gr., 45-70. Now which really has more "wallop energy"? I'll take the 45-70 every time.
Vic
Vic
Exactly...best example I can remember is like we've all seen a 10 year boy or girl barely able to carry a
bowling ball get it slowly started down a bowling lane, then watched it roll so slowly towards the pins that
we can see the finger holes come up around on every revolution, yet when it gets to the pins, it just keeps
plowing right on in...if you threw a lighter weight tennis ball as hard and as fast as you could at those pins,
it probably wouldn't knock any over at all
bowling ball get it slowly started down a bowling lane, then watched it roll so slowly towards the pins that
we can see the finger holes come up around on every revolution, yet when it gets to the pins, it just keeps
plowing right on in...if you threw a lighter weight tennis ball as hard and as fast as you could at those pins,
it probably wouldn't knock any over at all
I don't think your question built to high of a bonfire, quite often when you get a group who has been at this game for many years and introduce modern concepts, ballistics and all the hoopla that makes things appear more complicated than is the case folks get a little testy and defensive of a pastime held dearly, after all ML shooting ain't rocket science, but those who sell/promote the modern twist to it would like us to think so, it's more profitable for 'em.
I don't recall who it was, but a long time ago someone came up with a formula for killing power which boiled down to Velocity X bullet weight X Caliber/100. This really is type of Momentum X Bullet Diameter/100. The answer is not in any real units, it is just for a comparison.
I think the originator used a unit called KP for killing power and the reason he came up with the formula was because he felt the Foot/Lb Formula placed too much emphasis on velocity (which is squared in those calculations). (for a close approximation the formula for Muzzle Energy in Foot Pounds is Velocity X Velocity X bullet weight in grains /450000.)
If I apply the KP formula with a .50 Caliber, 185 grain PRB at 1700 FPS
it works out to be .490 X 185 X 1700 /100 = 1416.1
for a .54 caliber 230 grain PRB at 1600 FPS we have
.53 X 230 X 1600 / 100 = 1950.4
for a .30-30 with a 150 grain bullet at 2320 FPS we have
.30 X 150 X 2300 / 100 = 1035.0
for a .30-06 with a 180 grain bullet at 2740 FPS we have
.30 X 180 X 2740 / 100 = 1479.6
As to why the Army kept the old .45ACP we have
.45 X 230 X 900 /100 = 931.5
A 9MM Luger = 125 X .357 X 1145 / 100 = 510.9
You can see why his idea didn't catch on with the High Power Rifle Shooters but IMHO I think some of this idea helps explain why Black Powder guns are such effective hunting tools and why your deer went down like it was hit by a freight train.
I think the originator used a unit called KP for killing power and the reason he came up with the formula was because he felt the Foot/Lb Formula placed too much emphasis on velocity (which is squared in those calculations). (for a close approximation the formula for Muzzle Energy in Foot Pounds is Velocity X Velocity X bullet weight in grains /450000.)
If I apply the KP formula with a .50 Caliber, 185 grain PRB at 1700 FPS
it works out to be .490 X 185 X 1700 /100 = 1416.1
for a .54 caliber 230 grain PRB at 1600 FPS we have
.53 X 230 X 1600 / 100 = 1950.4
for a .30-30 with a 150 grain bullet at 2320 FPS we have
.30 X 150 X 2300 / 100 = 1035.0
for a .30-06 with a 180 grain bullet at 2740 FPS we have
.30 X 180 X 2740 / 100 = 1479.6
As to why the Army kept the old .45ACP we have
.45 X 230 X 900 /100 = 931.5
A 9MM Luger = 125 X .357 X 1145 / 100 = 510.9
You can see why his idea didn't catch on with the High Power Rifle Shooters but IMHO I think some of this idea helps explain why Black Powder guns are such effective hunting tools and why your deer went down like it was hit by a freight train.
Guest
'Zonie,.... I find thet formula very innerest'n, as it puts my current .58 at a "whoppin",.. 2553.6 :applause:
(no wunder the one I had up in Alaska, kilt moose so well!)
(no wunder the one I had up in Alaska, kilt moose so well!)
