Author Topic: 800 ft-lbs ethical minimum? (Read 2178 times)

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **on:** January 21, 2004, 03:47:35 AM »

I'm in a debate with a guy who has made the claim that 800 ft-lbs of KE is the "widely accepted" minimum to ethically kill deer-sized game.

What has your experience been with this?

It seems that even a .44 mag would drop below 800 ft-lbs in short order. Making anything but super-close shots UNethical by this fellow's standards.

I thought the 800 fpe was a number associated with the amount necessary to instantly drop a deer. Am I off-base?

Zeus · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2004, 03:59:42 AM »

Last time I checked, a bow and arrow has no where near that energy and I have killed truckloads with a bow so I guess they weren't really dead huh. GS

DzrtRat · « **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2004, 04:52:18 AM »

Well, I'm not the fartest smeller....er...smartest fellar in the world, but I kinda think this whole rigamoroe about x amount of kinetic energy or even the KO formula (something like ((velocity X bullet weight X bullet diameter)/(7000 -the number of grains in a lb of powder, whatever that has to do with it)) is stuff dreamed up by overzealous mathematicians.

Every action causes an equal and opposite reaction, right? That means that the rifle is going to hit your shoulder with the same energy that the bullet hits the animal with.

Hmm....are you going to die from the kick from even a very large, light rifle? No, animals die from organ/vascular damage, not how much energy they are hit with. You could hit a deer with 800 ft lbs of energy from a ball bat and it likely wouldn't kill it; slip a knife between it's ribs with minimal force and the deer's not going to live long.

When bullets are pushed faster than they are constructed for, they can fail to penetrate. When not pushed fast enough, small diameter bullets can fail to expand and can simply "pencil" an animal and they will run quite a ways. Considering this, I'd say matching your bullet velocity/construction/caliber has a lot more to do with it than how much energy it has.

A bullet with a wide meplat will cause more trauma than a pointed bullet, for another example of a variable.

So does energy have nothing to do with it? Not exactly. The bullet needs enough energy to penetrate the vitals, and if it's a small diameter bullet it will also need enough velocity and energy to make the bullet expand properly so that it leaves a large wound channel.

How much energy and velocity is needed is going to depend heavily on bullet weight, bullet construction, caliber, and what animal is being hunted. Just for fun, we might also need to add a standard of deviation; lets use the number of deer killed with a .22 LR in the last 50 years! That ought to do it.

~Rat

willis5 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 21, 2004, 05:41:47 AM »

well put

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2004, 05:42:11 AM »

Quote

lets use the number of deer killed with a .22 LR in the last 50 years! That ought to do it.

DezertRat,

Thanks for the response. The issue is ethics and humane kills. Although I'm aware that .22 LR kill lots of deer, it is generally employed by people with very low ethical standards. I doubt the users of .22LR lose sleep at night if they maim a deer.

You and I agree that this tripe about 800 fpe is overblown.

I know a lot of you have experience hitting deer with less than 800fpe. I thought maybe I'd draw on that.

PA-Joe · « **Reply #5 on:** January 21, 2004, 05:45:37 AM »

For load development and setting max ranges I use 1000!

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #6 on:** January 21, 2004, 05:52:33 AM »

PA-Joe,

Gadzooks! 1000 foot-pounds is quite a bit for handguns. There aren't many that can reach that and hold it for much distance. Unless you shoot T/C's chambered for rifles cartridges or the big ogres like .454s and such.

I take it you consider the .44 mag in the pipsqueak realm.

Larry Gibson · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2004, 06:50:42 AM »

Black Jaque Janaviac

"Gadzooks! 1000 foot-pounds is quite a bit for handguns. There aren't many that can reach that and hold it for much distance. Unless you shoot T/C's chambered for rifles cartridges or the big ogres like .454s and such.

I take it you consider the .44 mag in the pipsqueak realm."

I agree. Anytime I see "ethically" put into the equation of killing it always seems as an oxymoron. If we are so "ethical" then why are we killing? Most always when we read of the "minum" amount of energy required it is always in the context of some writer justifying their use of a cartridge or a class of cartridges. It really has little to do with ethics, tantamount to the western plains deer hunter saying the southern tree stands or the Texan Sendaro stands are unethical.

As a young lad I killed numerous deer with a .22 because it was all I had. None got away maimed or crippled as I was very aware of the killing power of the .22 and always put the bullet where it belonged. All the poachers I've known (arrested) were very concious about killing, not wounding. Wounding was a waste of their time. It was only vandals that were usually drunk that wantonly just shot at animals. I also took many deer and a couple elk with a bow. As a LEO I partook in the shooting/killing of many animals with handguns of which very few met the 800 ftlbs criteria, even at the muzzle. Did that make me an unethical LEO?

Ethics like morals and scruples are a matter of perspective. What is correct in one location or to some probably is not correct in another local or to others. We should concern ourselves with killing our chosen animal as efficiently as possible with the chosen weapon by the method of hunting we use. That most always is the most "humane" (another oxymoronic meaning).

Larry Gibson

475/480 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2004, 07:00:34 AM »

### everybody wants to put out a formula, no way there is a certain # for hunting or self defense purposes that is accurate,to many bears have been killed by Eskimo women w / 22 shorts and to many men have been shot 5 times w/45 auto and kept coming,
Sean

Mikey · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2004, 07:41:39 AM »

Gentlemen - could it be that both hunting and killing are ethical??

I feel the only 'ethical' option for a hunter is the 'quickest' possible kill, whether by bow and arrow, handgun, rifle or shotgun. It makes little difference to any animal whether his/her heart and lungs have been holed through by a 357 semiwadcutter, a 45-70 softpoint or a broadheaded arrow (unless you are British, believe that fish feel pain and have American relations in peta). Statistics mean little, especially when they aren't really relevant - a 357 will penetrate a whitetail's chest the same way a 5 hunnert and 90 semi-auto lever action pump bolt gun's hottest load will. All you really need do is ask yourself if the way you hunt is up to your own standard of ethics and let the other guy worry about his, unless he is doing something illegal enough to implicate you as well or dangerous enough to effect you.

Is killing ethical - yes! That's how we, as humans, evolve and survive. OK? Thanks. Now how about lunch? Mikey.

DzrtRat · « **Reply #10 on:** January 21, 2004, 08:06:12 AM »

Quote

Now how about lunch? Mikey.

Sure, Mikey! I'll stick some elk steaks on the grill and a couple of 'taters in the oven.

Don't be late 'cause that kind of food don't last long around here!

~Rat

Ranger413 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 21, 2004, 06:21:37 PM »

Hmm, I think I'll take my own advice. (see my signature)

On second hand . . . I've heard that for rifle calibers the .243 is about the minimum for deer sized game, in the handgun it would likely be the .357 Magnum.

In gunfights the old saying goes "the first most accurate shot wins". I feel that's why I'm switching to the Encore for most if not all of my hunting. I want, in the back of my mind, to be thinking that I only have one shot. Not the tubular magazine holding seven more rounds after the first.

I don't take marginal shots, but stuff happens. Like missing that small twig in the scope that deflects your bullet. I'd rather have a .308 deflect and hit a little far back than a .223, wouldn't you?

Ranger413

PA-Joe · « **Reply #12 on:** January 22, 2004, 01:44:49 AM »

Sorry, the 1000 is for rifle loads.

DzrtRat · « **Reply #13 on:** January 22, 2004, 04:09:24 AM »

Now I'm a settin' here scratchin' my head, wonderin' how a critter can tell the difference between bein' shot with a rifle an' bein' shot with a han'gun.

If anythin', I'd have to suppose that a han'gun would need MORE power. Seein' as how they ain't quite as accurate as a rifle most of the time, I'd think the chance of hittin' 'em wrong is likely a little higher with a han'gun.

But then, I ain't all knowed up on such thangs, seein' as how I don't read much in the gun rags. Fact is, I really don't know how much energy my loads is got. I jest know that when I shoot somethin' with 'em, that somethin' jest seems to obligingly falls over dead with monotonous regularity.

I reckon our deer ain't all knowed up either, seein' as how they don't seem to live up to proper ettiquete and toughness standards set by the gun rags.

Ah well; ignorance is bliss, ain't is fellars?

~Rat

Varmint Hunter · « **Reply #14 on:** January 22, 2004, 12:08:51 PM »

I believe that the 1,000 ft/lbs criteria was a "guidline" for rifle cartridges. If for some reason you wanted to set a minimum energy standard this may not be unrealistic. Of course if you substantially change the parameters, the 1,000 ft/lbs would seem inappropiate.

The reason why it is less important for handgun cartridges is probably because there is a lot to be said for for the overall bullet mass (weight) and frontal diameter of large pistol bullets. The pistol bullets typically have both of these advantages over the average rifle bullet.

VH

kciH · « **Reply #15 on:** January 22, 2004, 02:14:58 PM »

If you can make a good sized hole THROUGH the animal in an appropriate are it will make no difference what it is. A .357 with proper loads will do it just as well as a .243 will, albeit at a much shorter range.

Ed Harris · « **Reply #16 on:** January 22, 2004, 02:19:08 PM »

Energy limits in state game laws are based upon the performance of factory loads and the theoretical "average" hunter. Energy alone is not a valid criteria, without any consideration of hit probability or bullet performance. That being said, if I was going to set a standard for relatively unskilled hunters shooting solid, non or marginally expanding bullets with iron sighted rifles at unknown ranges, I'd consider 1000 ft. lbs. with a .25 cal. firing at least a 100-gr. bullet as minimum for a rifle and at least 600 ft.-lbs. with a .35 caliber firing at least a 140-gr. bullet as minimum for a handgun.

At close woods ranges within 25 yards I've killed deer reliably with single rounds from .44 cap & ball revolvers, .38 Special +P lead HP and lead FN handloads in the .44-40, .45 Colt and .44 Magnum. Marksmanship is the key. No one should shoot at game with any firearm at a distance excedding that which they can hit a 6" diameter target on demand from a field position. Helping hundreds of hunters sight in rifles over the years, I have seen that for the average hunter who is not a year round shooting hobbyist, the maximum practical distance for a heavy caliber handgun is about 25 yards, for a muzzleloading rifle with iron sightrs about 50 yards, an iron sighted big game rifle about 150 yards and for a scoped hunting rifle 200 yards.

I once helped supervise a controlled hunt on a military reservation where the CO and game warden has a good practical test. Hunters had their firearms safety inspected by an MTU armorer and tagged before they could be fired on the range. Depending on the type of arm they intended to hunt with they were directed to one steel target and given one shot for record, no practice or sighters to hit it. The target was a 5" steel auto-popper by www.mgmtargets.com of the type used for police sniper rifle training. Range was 25 yards for handguns, 50 yards for muzzle loaders and 100 yards center-fire rifles. One shot standing on your hind legs, no rest, you could use a sling. Hit the target and get your permit. Miss the target and you go home and can try again tomorrow. System worked.
Should be the law on any public land in my opinion.

kciH · « **Reply #17 on:** January 22, 2004, 08:18:50 PM »

Ed,
some great information. Too bad your test would prevent many hunters from participating in the sport. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, I endorse it in fact, but I don't think it's like to gain widespread support by the " I sighted it off the bench" crowd who "knows" they can "shoot an elk at 450yds" because they have a high powered scope. I see tons of these types every year...I wonder where it will lead the traditional activity of hunting? I guess we all can't be rifle loonies, but we should be able to shoot to some standard.

Gregory · « **Reply #18 on:** January 23, 2004, 12:48:47 PM »

Illinois has a 500 ft-lb min for handguns used for deer hunting. Makes the 357 Mag a practical min. Although they list the 30 Carbine as legal. I've shot deer with 357 Mag, 357 Max, 300 Whisper, and 44 Mag out of handguns. They didn't die any slower (on average) than the ones I've shot with a 30/06 out of a rifle.

Dan Chamberlain · « **Reply #19 on:** January 23, 2004, 02:07:41 PM »

I'm all for it. In Europe it's quite common. In Sweden, they have to hit a moving bull moose target! You gotta drive to get a license, why not shoot to get one? Of course, if they did it with shotguns, I'd miss a lot of dove seasons

Dan C

myronman3 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 23, 2004, 02:37:42 PM »

well as far as test to get a license, that is what hunter safety is for. and as far as a shooter profiency test; dogcrap! the key here is to know your limits and stay within them. and please dont try to use military standards to set the standard for the public. commanding officers are about as $^%%$# stupid as they come. my seargent major used to threaten to bust us down to a 2nd Lt. know your limits, respect them and everyone will be fine. the last thing we need is more restrictions.

propmahn · « **Reply #21 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:37:39 PM »

alright, now as it seems to be known on this board that energy isnt the determing factor in what kills an animal im hoping you can all follow me here. Anybody with the firearms knowledge to debate the issue of energy limts should be able to realize that it doesnt really matter. A cartridge's killing power is not determined by energy. bullet diameter, construction of said bullet, velocity, shot placement (requires less power to double lung a broadside standing deer than to break both shoulders) all are key componenets.
people who debate energy tend to be hunters who wonder how far out their 30-06 is effective (way past someone like should be asking questions).
each cartridge should be jugded differently, energy is for engineers working with thermodynamic systems not deer hunting.

Mattkc · « **Reply #22 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:46:42 PM »

I think the 800 fps. is for guys that can't hit vital organs on deer sized game.

BS · « **Reply #23 on:** January 26, 2004, 11:26:43 AM »

Come on guys, my 41 is getting 2938, if I did the math right 300 at 2100. Some kick and a little blast.............Five deer, five shots...........Well, maybe a big Kick and a Big BLAST!

bgjohn · « **Reply #24 on:** January 26, 2004, 11:51:19 AM »

:wink: Let me see here, 308 X (number of shots fired - number of misses) x (todays JULIAN date) / wind speed x # of al gores electoral votes = what ? What the HELL was I trying to figure out ? Oh well.
JM :toast:

PaulS · « **Reply #25 on:** January 27, 2004, 07:31:49 PM »

Years ago (hmmmmm about 30 years) the rule of thumb was three times the weight of the animal in Ft Lbs of energy but then the hypervelocity small calibers took over, there was a process of re-thinking that went on. I personally don't think that energy alone is a good way to judge the effect of a projectile on its target. A .5 grain tungsten projectile that is .050 inches in diameter can be driven at a high enough velocity to give it 600 ft lbs of energy but it would have a lot less of an impact on game than a 2 lb projectile of 1 inch diameter with the same 600 Ft Lbs of energy.

You need two things to efficiently kill game:

1. penetration at least to the vital organs or nervous system.

2. a projectile that will do enough damage to critically damage those areas.

An arrow does this by cutting the internal parts when it runs or as the arrow penetrates.

A bullet has to punch a hole into the organs or nerve bundles and the bigger the hole the quicker it will kill - the hole is the permanent wound channel not the temporary channel caused by the "hydraulic shock" effect of lightweight hypersonic bullets.

With my limited personal experience and a wealth of information from scientific trials I have a formula that I use to calculate the terminal performance of the bullets that I use in the calibers that I shoot. These rounds have proven effective and have also been tested for velocity (chronograph), accuracy (target shooting at the range) and penetration in a consistent medium (salt water). The best test has been the performance in the field. This is the final and most important test that anyone can give to the ammunition that they use to hunt with. It should kill cleanly and quickly every time it is used, it should give consistent accuracy and produce enough velocity for the kind of hunting that you do.

PaulS