Author Topic: Is it the ammo or the gun?  (Read 2569 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline markc

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1922
Is it the ammo or the gun?
« on: January 11, 2007, 03:08:07 AM »
Okay, so I have a 336 CS in 35 Rem which has become my favorite rifle for the woods near home.  This season it accounted for 3 large feral hogs and a nice bobcat.  All of that was with the new Hornady ammo, the pointed stuff.   Here is the problem, after the shot on the bobcat, I could barely open the action and once open, the next round in the mag tube came out somehow and jammed up the action.   I was stuck like chuck and the hunt was over.   Gander Mountain gun smith completely disassembled the rifle and found nothing wrong with it.  He loaded up 5 rounds of old Rem core lokt 200grs and they all fired and cycled through perfectly.  I went back to the Hornady ammo.   Shot a nice pig, chambered a new round and fired at another hog.   

Next hunt, I began to wonder if I had cleared the chamber or not after that hunt (CRN).  As I worked the lever to open the action, it was not wanting to open.  I did get the action open to realize that there had been a live round in the chamber, but now the hornady pointed bullet was still in the barrell, but had not come  out with the brass which was now spilling gun powder inside the action.  I tried to empty the remaining rounds from the magazine and again, one round somehow froze up the action leaving the rifle once again out of commission.   After a partial disassembly, the gun is empty of rounds, but now will not extract even the Rem ammo.  It pulls them from the mag, chambers them, but will not extract them. 

Is there a possibility that these problems are caused by the hornady ammo?   I'm not looking to get after Hornady and the rifle is on it's way to the gun smith again, but I can't see using the hornady ammo agian, atleast not in this rifle.   Anyone else had a problem like this? 
markc

Offline davem270win

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 280
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2007, 07:06:55 AM »
Sounds to me like the Hornady ammo is somehow too long, and the bullet is being seated into the lands. It is also then possible that problem has caused the extractor to break or bend from the force needed to extract the round.

In a fired round, the extra resistance from the bullet being in the lands may be enough to create an excess pressure situation. I would have the gunsmith check the freebore and land and groove diameter on your rifle, as well as headspace.

It may be possible the Hornandy load and your gun are just not compatible.


Offline ggeilman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2007, 07:14:45 AM »
I have been reading about more than a couple of people having problems with the new ammo and older (non XLT) marlin 35's. Hornaday and Marlin seem to be aware of the problem. There is a thread on it at:
http://www.marlinowners.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=18427
You might want to check it out.


Online Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26939
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2007, 08:20:48 AM »
The Hornady ammo is an answer to a question that should NEVER have been asked. The .35 is a super short range killer but is NOT a long range chambering and is never gonna be. I'd suggest just sticking to any brand of 200 RN ammo and your feeding problems will go away and it will do all the round is capable of. It's about a 150 yard max round and it needs no help from new ammo to get it there. If you need more range than that chose another round.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline Coyote Hunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2534
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2007, 05:13:42 PM »
The .35 Rem is "a 150 yard max round"?

Why, because "that's the way its always been"?  Because people can't hit anything beyond that?  Because the old pharts get upset when it is used for ranges greater than that?  Because no one scopes their leverguns or even uses peep sights?

Or maybe the 1003fpe the .35 Rem LE ammo delivers at 300 yards is insufficient to kill anything and even the 1315fpe it delivers at 200 yards is inadequate for any ethical hunting use?

If everyone thought like that all cars would still be black and would be driven by steam power.

Even with regular handloads the .35 Rem can do considerably better than 150 yards.  Loaded with a 180g Speer and driven to 2232fps ( a mild 33,100 CUP load per Hodgdon), the .35 Rem has a Maximum Point Blank Range of 209 yards when zeroed for a 6" target, and it delivers over 1050fpe at that range.

While I don't have a .35 Rem I am glad Hornady is offering the LE ammo for it.  The Hornady LE ammo delivers more energy at 200 yards than my 7-1/2" .44 Mag Super Redhawk, pushing a 240g at 1519fps, delivers at the muzzle. 
Coyote Hunter
NRA, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

Online Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26939
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2007, 05:46:49 PM »
Energy smenergy. I've said it a million times already but might as well say it one more time. FPE is paper energy, that's what the P really stands for. Know what the F stands for? Fake cuz that's what it is.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18244
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2007, 12:22:45 AM »
im with greybeard on this i think the new wave of lever ammo is silly. Im not paying twice what they get for a box of corelocks to make my .35 into something it wasnt designed for. If im going for a walk in the woods ill take one of my levers if im going to hunt a field theres better guns for the job. As far as the corelocks go they will take care of anything out to 200 yards and to me its a sin to put a scope on a lever gun and 200 is about all i can handle with a peep anyway.
blue lives matter

Offline cam69conv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2007, 04:07:31 AM »
Energy smenergy. I've said it a million times already but might as well say it one more time. FPE is paper energy, that's what the P really stands for. Know what the F stands for? Fake cuz that's what it is.

Simple Kinetic energy calculations are not fake nor are they hard to comprehend...Dont understand why SOME people cant get a grip on this...Its  velocity and mass simple as that...And with a better BC its NATURALLY going to give more punch downrange that its non tipped counterpart. Better or not its just simple facts and to call it all fake is just sheer lunacy and unwillingness to understand simple mathmatics.

Ill make it easy for you to understand....The faster an object is traveling the harder it is going to hit...With the new tips on the LE rounds, its DOWNRANGE speed is better than the roundnosed counterpart, AT THE SAME WEIGHT, so therefore its going to NATURALLY hit harder...Why is this simple concept elluding these minds? Also with Better BC comes flatter trajectories. Now Im not saying they have turned the .35, 30.30, or the .444 into 300 yard weapons nor would I try a shot at that range...But they HAVE successfully IMPROVED performance in ranges that these weapons were designed for. If you cant see this then you are just being blind and stubborn. Sorry if this offends...But to call simple mathmatical calculations ,that my 6 year old understands, fake just erks me. Not all companies are out there to try to "get over" on the public and just because they have reinvented something, the traditionalists are having a little fit about it! If they hadnt reinvented some things we would still be in the horse and buggy days (not that id mind that) and NOTHING would get better. Open your minds a little!


BS says Graybeard. You clearly DO NOT understand Physics. FPE is NOT a measure of work. If it were the gun would lay your butt on the ground every time you pulled the trigger. If FPE were real you could shoot into a bag of sand or any thing hanging and see it swing a LONG way. YOU CANNOT because FPE is just what I said it was FAKE PAPER energy and doesn't exist in the reat world.
You want a divorce if I go hunting today??? Well sorry ta see ya go...Was nice knowin ya..Dont let tha door hit ya where tha good lord split ya :D

Offline Coyote Hunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2534
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2007, 07:42:02 AM »
im with greybeard on this i think the new wave of lever ammo is silly. Im not paying twice what they get for a box of corelocks to make my .35 into something it wasnt designed for. If im going for a walk in the woods ill take one of my levers if im going to hunt a field theres better guns for the job. As far as the corelocks go they will take care of anything out to 200 yards and to me its a sin to put a scope on a lever gun and 200 is about all i can handle with a peep anyway.

I have a longer response coming after I get off work and have time to finish it, but to suggest that Hornady LE ammo costs "twice what they get for a box of corelocks" is just so much cow poop.

Here is some real data, fresh off the Midwayusa.com web site:

$19.79 200g Remington Core-Lokt
$19.49 200g Hornady LeverEvolution

That's right, the street price for the .35 LeverEvolution ammo is not "twice what they get for a box of corelocks", its   *** CHEAPER ***.


Coyote Hunter
NRA, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18244
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2007, 11:50:28 AM »
dont know where you shop but ive seen .35s at wally world for 12 bucks a box. The slam for not understanding energy figures is way off too. What the difference is is that Bill has seen real world ballistics and has just stated in his opionin that the differnce in power is nill and i agree. YOu can quote me energy figures from your calcuator all day long but ive seen the reaction deer and other game have after being hit by many differnt weapons and even though a .35 has alot less energy then say a 270 does at 100 yards surely doesnt mean that a 270 is a better killer of deer at 100 yards because that is just bunk!. Theres alot more to it then velocity at impact and bullet weight. Probably the biggest factors in a good killing round is bullet constuction. If one of those round nosed underpowered corelocks hits flesh it expands takes out vitals and has enough momentum to kee going inside of an animal and it will do it at 30 yards and it will still do it at 200. If the couple inches of trajectory is the big bonus you guys shooting this fancy new ammo are raving about. Its surely no big deal to me. You sure didnt turn my .35 into a 257 weatherby and i shoot my gun enough to know where it hits at differernt ranges. People have been shooting deer and black bear out to 200 yards for years with the .35 and 3030 with corelocks and winchester and federal std ammo and im here to tell you that if an animal is hit in the vitals with any of it the animal is DEAD!! Corelocks do not bounce off of animals. At least not in michigan anyway. I get a real kick out of people who say they cant but truely believe there contenders in those calibers are some majic round that will flatten elephants. If you cant kill a deer with factory corelocks in a .35 youd best buy about 20 boxes of them and learn your gun because a box of that new hornady stuff sure isnt going to make the diffence between a hit or miss at any sane range a levergun is going to be use at. At least not by a rifleman.
blue lives matter

Offline cam69conv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2007, 01:32:24 PM »
Ok #1 we are NOT comparing a .35 to a .270.... we are comparing a 200 grain .35 to a 200 grain .35... And its NOT just on paper or on our lil geek calculators...Some people may wish to take the time to research all the testing that these rounds have been through....Penetration tests on several different mediums, such as wet paper test...Ballistic Jell...Actual BONE to ballistic jell just to name a few. And all of which showed BETTER performance DOWNRANGE. I have yet to see anyone saying this is a "magic" bullet. Just being said that the rounds PERFORMANCE has been enhanced. Isnt that what ANY good hunter would want? Yes the 200 grain coreloct has been a fine upstanding performer...But if we didnt strive to improve things we would still be useing spears and rudamentry knives to kill our game. And eating it raw!! I do agree that bullet construction is one of the PRIMARY things to downing an animal efficiantly and the tests have shown that this round definatly holds up quite well. Now I dont know about you, But in my own little opinion better is better no matter how ya slice the cheese. Ill take 200 footpounds more energy at the SAME COST with a higher BC and better trajectory any day. Some say that 200 pounds more is minimal...Yes it may be to you...But thats kinna like saying Id prefer to use second best for the same cost. BUT...One thing that people are NOT concidering is...That these rounds were designed around the new 24 inch barrel found on the XLR Marlin and NOT the older models with 18 to 22 inch barrels...And that WILL make a hell of a big difference in performance. To each his own I say...But dont come around belitteling someone because they actually USE the mathmatical equations that are there for a reason to figure things out for a starting point. Oh...And I dont know what figures you are useing...But the .35 200 grain doesnt have MUCH less energy at 100 yards than a 150 grain from a .270... Those 50 grains pack one hell of a wallup.. Ive folded deer up with both rounds and they both perform quite well on deer. You hit Bone with that .150 grain .270 and make it expend that speed into impact energy then its a deer dropper...You hit rib or light cartilage and it just slices right on through and you have a lil tracking to do...Still does the job...Deer is just as dead...It just doesnt know it as fast  ;D
You want a divorce if I go hunting today??? Well sorry ta see ya go...Was nice knowin ya..Dont let tha door hit ya where tha good lord split ya :D

Offline Coyote Hunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2534
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2007, 03:03:41 PM »
dont know where you shop but ive seen .35s at wally world for 12 bucks a box.

OK, fine.  You've found Remington .35 Rem ammo for $12 a box, but can you show where anyone can buy it at that price today?
 
Regardless, $12.99 is still a far cry from half the street price of Hornady's .35 Rem LE ammo.  Here are a few more prices:
 
Cabelas
$21.99 Hornady
$20.99 Remington
 
Natchez
$17.56 Hornady
$17.28 Remington
 
Graf & Sons
$18.99 Hornady
$??.?? Remington (Not available)
 
Lock, Stock & Barrel
$18.89 Hornady
$??.?? Remington (Not available)
 
Midsouth
$18.75 Hornady
$??.?? Remington (Not available)
 
Midway
$17.49 Hornady
$17.99 Remington
 
 
Interestingly, Graf, Lock Stock and Midsouth don't even offer the Remington. 
Coyote Hunter
NRA, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

Offline Coyote Hunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2534
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2007, 03:34:40 PM »
Quote from: Lloyd Smale

The slam for not understanding energy figures is way off too. … a .35 has alot less energy then say a 270 does at 100 yards surely doesnt mean that a 270 is a better killer of deer at 100 yards because that is just bunk!.
As Redhawk1 pointed out, I was comparing the .35 Rem to the .35 Rem.  Standard ammo to LE ammo.  You’re the one that is way off…

Quote from: Lloyd Smale
Theres alot more to it then velocity at impact and bullet weight. Probably the biggest factors in a good killing round is bullet constuction. If one of those round nosed underpowered corelocks hits flesh it expands takes out vitals and has enough momentum to kee going inside of an animal and it will do it at 30 yards and it will still do it at 200.
Then what you are saying is that if a rifle could push that same bullet fast enough that it arrived at 300 yards with the same velocity (and therefore energy) that standard ammo delivers at 200 yards, the bullet would be effective?  Ah, the concept of LE ammo explained.

Quote from: Lloyd Smale
If the couple inches of trajectory is the big bonus you guys shooting this fancy new ammo are raving about. Its surely no big deal to me. You sure didnt turn my .35 into a 257 weatherby and i shoot my gun enough to know where it hits at differernt ranges.
I didn’t mention trajectory as I hit targets at 300 yards and beyond quite easily with standard .30-30, .375 Win and .45-70 ammo.  The key difference is the energy delivered to the target by the LE ammo.

Quote from: Lloyd Smale
People have been shooting deer and black bear out to 200 yards for years with the .35 and 3030 with corelocks and winchester and federal std ammo and im here to tell you that if an animal is hit in the vitals with any of it the animal is DEAD!! Corelocks do not bounce off of animals. At least not in michigan anyway. I get a real kick out of people who say they cant but truely believe there contenders in those calibers are some majic round that will flatten elephants. If you cant kill a deer with factory corelocks in a .35 youd best buy about 20 boxes of them and learn your gun because a box of that new hornady stuff sure isnt going to make the diffence between a hit or miss at any sane range a levergun is going to be use at. At least not by a rifleman.

Ah, the crux of the problem is what you believe is a “sane range a levergun”.  My post was in response to one essentially contending that 150 yards was the maximum “sane range”.  You seem to be contending that 200 yards might be the maximum, but argue that the trajectory is not the limiting factor.  Given identical bullets, what is left?  Velocity, which determines retained Energy.


Frankly, I agree that bullet construction plays a large and very important part in terminal ballistics.  The bullet needs to be matched to the terminal velocity.  For comparison purposes, however, we will assume identical bullets of a design that is adequate at all velocities being compared.  I’m not a big fan of the LE bullets, but then I’m not a fan of Core-Lokt or InterLock or Game King or any number of other bullets, either.

So, for comparison purposes, here’s some stuff I posted in another thread regarding the .30-30 and .308 Marlin LE ammo.:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

200 yards:
 793fpe = Hornady 170g factory load .30-30
 832fpe = Hornady 150g factory load .30-30
1120fpe = Speer 150g 2400fps handload .30-30
1121fpe = Speer 170g 2200fps handload .30-30
1410fpe = Hornady LeverEvolution 160g .30-30
1552fpe = Speer 170g 2550fps handload for .308 Marlin
1761fpe = Hornady LeverEvolution 160g .308 Marlin

Of course, once we have zeroed for MPBR for a 6" diameter target we can look at where the bullet is down 10" - a combination I frequently use when assessing the useful range of a firearm (in addition to other factors):
240yds/696fpe = Hornady 170g factory load .30-30
255yds/683fpe = Hornady 150g factory load .30-30
260yds/962fpe = Speer 170g 2200fps handload .30-30
275yds/904fpe = Speer 150g 2400fps handload .30-30
290yds/1179fpe = Hornady LeverEvolution 160g .30-30
300yds/1212fpe = Speer 170g 2550fps handload for .308 Marlin
320yds/1403fpe = Hornady LeverEvolution 160g .308 Marlin

One last comparison, using the 1403fpe delivered by the .308 ME at 320 yards as the basis:
 60yds/1387fpe = Hornady 170g factory load .30-30
 70yds/1386fpe = Hornady 150g factory load .30-30
110yds/1403fpe = Speer 170g 2200fps handload .30-30
120yds/1400fpe = Speer 150g 2400fps handload .30-30
200yds/1410fpe = Hornady LeverEvolution 160g .30-30
240yds/1408fpe = Speer 170g 2550fps handload for .308 Marlin
320yds/1403fpe = Hornady LeverEvolution 160g .308 Marlin



Kinetic energy is a valid way of comparing various loads but is not a perfect method.  It is best used when comparing projectiles of similar construction and diameter and weight.

In this case I compared 150 and 170g cup-and-core bullets of the same diameter. The twist rates in the rifles may be different but the loads are close enough for a reasonably valid comparison.  People have long considered the .30-30 to be a short range tool because of the relatively low energy it delivers downrange.  Let’s compare apples to apples – my .30-30 load with the 170g Speer and the same bullet in a .308 Marlin at an estimated 2550fps.  The .308 Marlin delivers the same energy (1408fpe) at 240 yards that the .30-30 does at 110 yards (1403fpe).

 If Kinetic Energy has nothing to do with killing, then I propose I shoot my game while you throw identical bullets at them.  If you prefer you can use a rifled blowgun to stabilize the bullet and make sure it lands point first. We’ll see who gets more one shot kills, and if you can even get a kill.  Unless you live in a very strange and different universe where the laws of physics are radically different, energy counts for a great deal.  In this universe, energy is conserved (the First Law of Thermodynamics).  Translated, that means that if no energy is transferred from object ‘A’ (the bullet) to object ‘B’ (the game animal), no change occurs to object ‘B’.  No change, as in no change whatsoever – no imparted momentum at any level, no damage of any kind, nothing.  As in no injury or death.

There is nothing about a good Marlin that inherently limits its usefulness to 100 yards, 150 yards or even 200 yards.  I use my .30-30 to shoot clay pigeons at 200 yards on a regular basis and often back off to 300 yards.  Granted, I often miss, but I often hit as well and overall group size is better at 300 yards than many people achieve at 100 yards with other firearms.  My .45-70 will hold 5” a 300 yards and my Marlin in .375 Win has shot several 2” groups at 200 yards.

What other people think of leverguns is of little concern to me, but the sales of Hornady’s LE ammo indicates a great many people are either looking to extend the range of their leverguns with a flatter trajectory or are want to deliver more energy downrange.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It seems you don’t think 300 yards is a “sane range a levergun”, yet I would contend that for a “rifleman” who knows his rifle 300 yards with a good Marlin is no big deal.



Coyote Hunter
NRA, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18244
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2007, 04:01:37 PM »
l like your last statement as i too believe that a lever gun can be used effectively alot farther then 150 yards. I just dont think very many are capable of taking the time to learn one. The rest of your post to me is just a bunch of numbers. Ill stick to counting dead deer instead of counting foot pounds.
blue lives matter

Offline cam69conv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2007, 04:11:43 PM »
Kinetic Energy
 The smaller mass of the bullet, compared that of the gun-shooter system, allows significantly more energy to be imparted to the bullet than to the shooter. The kinetic energies for the two systems are  for the gun-shooter system and  for the bullet.

 
The ratio of the energies is the same as the ratio of the masses (and is independent of velocity). Since the mass of the bullet is much less than that of the shooter there is more kinetic energy transferred to the bullet than to the shooter. The larger kinetic energy of the bullet is then dissipated in the target.

Now with THAT being said...Where is it IN THE REAL WORLD Gray that you get you would be knocked on your butt every time you shot your weapon...You are quoting RELITIVE MASS TRANSFER theory which DOES NOT APPLY in this theorum. Yes if you are imparting energy to 2 equal masses I.E. the bullet weighed as mush as the delivery system (the rifle and shooter) You would be knocked on ya butt every time you pulled the trigger. But it doesnt. Therefore the equasion of mass recoil transfer does not apply. Hence KINETIC ENERGY. Its not just paper...Its real world. If you didnt have it there would be no physical damage! BTW...I went through Phys. 4 in College so yes I do understand it just a teeny little bit....Granted its been MANY years...But I really dont think much has changed in the basic velocities and mass theories in 20 years! Now...As i've stated MANY times so far...I dont think this round has revolutionized the lever world...But it has shown a marked improvement in performance out of the 24 inch barrel (which is needed to have the full potential of this round) and thats all that I need to see...Simply put...If I see a better performing and PROVEN better performing product...I as a hunter, a responsable one, have a duty to my game to use the best that I can for clean efficiant kills. Can I get the job done with the old stuff? YES....Will I when I have a better performing product at little to no extra expence to me? NO! Its that simple and yes its MY choice. If you wish to use lessor ammo then that is yours.

Now if needed I can post about 50 links for reference material showing Kenetic Energy formulas..Their uses in real world energy transfer and all that good stuff...But Im sure that wont be needed.
You want a divorce if I go hunting today??? Well sorry ta see ya go...Was nice knowin ya..Dont let tha door hit ya where tha good lord split ya :D

Online Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26939
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2007, 05:52:37 PM »
Quote
If Kinetic Energy has nothing to do with killing, then I propose I shoot my game while you throw identical bullets at them.  If you prefer you can use a rifled blowgun to stabilize the bullet and make sure it lands point first. We’ll see who gets more one shot kills, and if you can even get a kill.  Unless you live in a very strange and different universe where the laws of physics are radically different, energy counts for a great deal.  In this universe, energy is conserved (the First Law of Thermodynamics).  Translated, that means that if no energy is transferred from object ‘A’ (the bullet) to object ‘B’ (the game animal), no change occurs to object ‘B’.  No change, as in no change whatsoever – no imparted momentum at any level, no damage of any kind, nothing.  As in no injury or death.

Since you believe KE means so much I'll tell ya what. Let's go on a bear hunt, or a moose hunt or some such. I'll take my pipsqueak .44 magnum pushing a cast bullet a bit over 1000 fps and you take a souped up high velocity light bullet wonder like the .220 Swift which will just blow away my .44 with energy numbers. Lets see who comes back with the game.

Your KE theory is full of holes and won't hold water. When will you folks wake up in the real world. Hell even the major magazine writers are finally after all these years coming out of the closet and admitting what I've been telling you for years. KE is meaningless.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline cam69conv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2007, 06:57:28 PM »
And again someone comes in with completely different bullet weights to TRY to prove a point. The WEIGHT and the CONSTRUCTION of a bullet has meaning ALONG with the ENERGY...You people try to seperate it all when trying to make your MEANINGLESS and UNFOUNDED points...You CANNOT take the bullets themselves out of the equation and you damn well know it graybeard. If I can fire a friggin BB at 4500 fps It will STILL not do a thing to a moose because of its WEIGHT and physical SIZE....You are NOT looking at the POINT here as usuall when your head is set on something.... We are comparing the Kinetic values of the SAME WEIGHT AND CALIBRE BULLETS. You cannot compare it to anything else and you know it...Kinetic energy is only PART of the full terminal ballistic equations. I see the old Apples to Oranges thingy coming back as always.

Stick to the topic here please...We are comparing COMPERABLE bullets...Not the .35 to the .270 or any other calibre. The subject IS about the .35 LE compared to the old loads...Simple...Why try to complicate it with other stuff...the proof is right there for all to see in the TESTS...if you cant or just dont want to see it then thats on you.
You want a divorce if I go hunting today??? Well sorry ta see ya go...Was nice knowin ya..Dont let tha door hit ya where tha good lord split ya :D

Offline Coyote Hunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2534
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2007, 05:04:15 AM »

Since you believe KE means so much I'll tell ya what. Let's go on a bear hunt, or a moose hunt or some such. I'll take my pipsqueak .44 magnum pushing a cast bullet a bit over 1000 fps and you take a souped up high velocity light bullet wonder like the .220 Swift which will just blow away my .44 with energy numbers. Lets see who comes back with the game.

Your KE theory is full of holes and won't hold water. When will you folks wake up in the real world. Hell even the major magazine writers are finally after all these years coming out of the closet and admitting what I've been telling you for years. KE is meaningless.

Hide your head in the sand if you want – it is all about ENERGY and HOW it is transferred.  Zero energy transfer equals zero damage – that’s simple, basic physics. 

Give me the bullet of my choice and I would have no problem choosing the Swift over your 1000fps .44 bullet.  Give me a varmint bullet for the Swift and I’d choose the .44.

But once again you insist on losing focus and comparing apples and oranges.  For that bear or moose I’ll take a .44 and a 240g at 1519fps (my Ruger Super Redhawk) or at 1800fps (my Browning B92), before I’ll take one at 1000fps (your load). Why?  Other factors being equal, Energy.  Here’s some apples-to-apples comparisons:

.44 240g @ 1000fps = Your load
533fpe = 0 yds
477fpe = 50yds
433fpe= 100yds
396fpe = 150yds
311fpe = 200yds

.44 240g @ 1519fps = My Ruger Super Redhawk
1229fpe = 0 yds
971fpe = 50yds
779fpe = 100yds
647fpe = 150yds
559fpe = 200yds
532fpe = 220yds = Muzzle energy of Your 1000fps load


.44 240g @ 1880fps = My Browning B92
1883fpe = 0 yds
1493fpe = 50yds
1175fpe = 100yds
931fpe = 150yds
750fpe = 200yds
627fpe = 250yds
546fpe = 300yds
533fpe = 310yds = Muzzle energy of Your 1000fps load

If energy doesn’t matter, then your load should be as effective at 310 yards as the Browning, right?  That’s not a bet I would take…

If energy doesn’t matter then a .22LR should be as effective on coyotes as a .22-250, right?  But we both know the .22LR isn’t even close…

Here’s another one for you, apples to apples, both loads for my Marlin .45-70…

 907fpe = .45-70, 300g @ 1167fps
3363fpe = .45-70, 300g @ 2247fps

If your theory that energy is meaningless is correct, these loads should be able to demonstrate that.  OK, I shoot both loads into a line of water jugs sitting on a plywood platform and what happens? 

The first load penetrates 11 jugs and buries itself in the dirt berm behind the jugs.  Great penetration but not much damage to the jugs – the lead jug gets blown up but the others just have little holes in and out, all leaking water,.  A fluke?  Nope, repeated tests show the same thing.

The second load doesn’t penetrate all 11 jugs, but it blows about five of them up and comes to rest in the sixth which is split top to bottom.  Moreover, where the first jug was sitting there is a hole the size of the jug in the 5/16” thick plywood and the plastic sawhorse the plywood was sitting on is broken.  A fluke?  Nope, the .45-70 has done it twice.  (As has the .375 Win with a full-power 2663fpe load.)

Gosh, moose or bear, which load should I choose?  Even a grade schooler could get it right.

[Edited to correct typos.]







Coyote Hunter
NRA, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

Offline bubbadoyle

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 79
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2007, 07:01:50 AM »
I think that energy figures are just that energy figures.  They have very little to do with the killing power of a bullet.  For example lets take a .224 55 grain FMJ and a .224 55 grain v-max and shoot them into the same animal at the exact same impact velocity thus having the exact same kinectic energy then the must have the exact same results and killing power, I think not.  I think all that kinectic energy will tell you is that with the proper bullet you have enough momentum for that bullet to penetrate, it has nothing to do with the killing power of the bullet.  Since we want to make it simple.  Would you rather be hit by a bus going 30 fps or a needle going whatever velocity is required to equal the same energy as the bus, I will take my chances with the needle.

Offline cam69conv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2007, 07:26:39 AM »
I think that energy figures are just that energy figures.  They have very little to do with the killing power of a bullet.  For example lets take a .224 55 grain FMJ and a .224 55 grain v-max and shoot them into the same animal at the exact same impact velocity thus having the exact same kinectic energy then the must have the exact same results and killing power, I think not.  I think all that kinectic energy will tell you is that with the proper bullet you have enough momentum for that bullet to penetrate, it has nothing to do with the killing power of the bullet.  Since we want to make it simple.  Would you rather be hit by a bus going 30 fps or a needle going whatever velocity is required to equal the same energy as the bus, I will take my chances with the needle.

And again we have someone taking the full equation OUT OF CONTEXT....Now you are talking penetration do to the construction of a bullet. If the bullet isnt designed to open easily then you will have less damage...the IMPACT will be the same...But less energy would be expended into the animal because the bullet wasnt designed to OPEN therefore LESS Kinetic energy is SPENT INSIDE the animal. Bullet construction in a Key factor in ANY TERMINAL Ballistics test along with Kinetic energy...Mass weight...Velocity...People need to stop trying to prove a point by taking out part of the equations...If you want to prove your theory then PROVE it with the WHOLE construction of the problem...Not just parts
You want a divorce if I go hunting today??? Well sorry ta see ya go...Was nice knowin ya..Dont let tha door hit ya where tha good lord split ya :D

Offline Camel 23

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2007, 08:03:58 AM »
Gee Coyote Hunter why would you not want the varmint bullet in the 220 swift?  With a varmint bullet, the bullet would not exit and all of the precious energy would be transfered into the animal.  With say a hardcast bullet at 1000 fps you are going to get complete penetraion and wouldn't be able to transfer all of the energy (which surely isn't enough anyway).  Maybe because in the real world energy doesn't mean squat?  Come on Coyote Hunter take the bet!

Offline cam69conv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2007, 09:16:08 AM »
Gee Coyote Hunter why would you not want the varmint bullet in the 220 swift?  With a varmint bullet, the bullet would not exit and all of the precious energy would be transfered into the animal.  With say a hardcast bullet at 1000 fps you are going to get complete penetraion and wouldn't be able to transfer all of the energy (which surely isn't enough anyway).  Maybe because in the real world energy doesn't mean squat?  Come on Coyote Hunter take the bet!

TY for just now proving my point about people taking things out of context. Can you people NOT understand the SIMPLE physics of this? If in the real world.if energy didnt mean squat you couldnt walk...The wind wouldnt blow...nothing would even exist. The energy of a bullet is the MAIN factor in Terminal Ballistics...And to think otherwise is just flat out ignorance period. Penetration is inherant to the CONSTRUCTION of a bullet as well as ENERGY...Without the energy you dont get penetration...Without construction, the energy pushing the bullet into dense mass will cause the bullet to fail. All components are factored into these equations. You take away ANY of the components and you have a failed problem with no plausable nor reasonable solution. Energy is relitive to mass just as mass is relitive to energy...without one or the other you have nothing...Mass without energy cannot move...If you can prove otherwise in ANY way please show me and we will partner up and become the richest people on the planet because you just came up with a way to create free energy! Expending said energy into an animal is not the only thing in terminal ballistics. You are talking hydrostatic shock created from Kinetic energy transferred into the animal because of the mushrooming bullet being slowed quickly against the mass of the animal. The best quality bullets offer controled expansion for penetration of the initial hide and bone then mushrooming inside the body to create shock. Harder more jacketed bullets zip through rather than expending energy inside the animal...they Kill like an arrow creating a hemmoraging effect rather than hydrostatic shock. All factors neet to be included into this problem because without one factor you cannot nor WILL not have any plausable solution. Its that simple...
You want a divorce if I go hunting today??? Well sorry ta see ya go...Was nice knowin ya..Dont let tha door hit ya where tha good lord split ya :D

Offline Camel 23

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2007, 09:45:26 AM »
Damn, I just wanted Coyote Hunter to take his energy bear hunting. ::)

Offline Coyote Hunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2534
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2007, 09:48:16 AM »
I think that energy figures are just that energy figures.  They have very little to do with the killing power of a bullet.  For example lets take a .224 55 grain FMJ and a .224 55 grain v-max and shoot them into the same animal at the exact same impact velocity thus having the exact same kinectic energy then the must have the exact same results and killing power, I think not.  I think all that kinectic energy will tell you is that with the proper bullet you have enough momentum for that bullet to penetrate, it has nothing to do with the killing power of the bullet.  Since we want to make it simple.  Would you rather be hit by a bus going 30 fps or a needle going whatever velocity is required to equal the same energy as the bus, I will take my chances with the needle.

No, using bullets of different construction one should NOT expect similar results, even if other factors are the same.  The fallacy in your argument is you are not taking into consideration the manner of energy transfer or the time involved in the transfer.  Bullet construction affects both.  The varmint bullet can cause dramatic kills IF it can penetrate to the vitals.  If it blows up on a shoulder death may come but be the result of infection rather than the damage caused by the bullet.  A FMJ penetrates well but may not transfer much energy in doing so.  Give me a .224” Trophy Bonded or TSX and the level of confidence goes WAY up.

I, too, would take the needle.  Even though they have the same energy, the bus would likely transfer a great deal more energy to my body while the needle would likely transfer relatively little.


Coyote Hunter
NRA, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

Offline Coyote Hunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2534
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2007, 10:10:45 AM »
Gee Coyote Hunter why would you not want the varmint bullet in the 220 swift?  With a varmint bullet, the bullet would not exit and all of the precious energy would be transfered into the animal.  With say a hardcast bullet at 1000 fps you are going to get complete penetraion and wouldn't be able to transfer all of the energy (which surely isn't enough anyway).  Maybe because in the real world energy doesn't mean squat?  Come on Coyote Hunter take the bet!

Camel23 -

I have quite a number of firearms better suited to bear hunting than my .22-250 (don't have a Swift, but close enough - the Swift doesn't offer anything the .22-250 doesn't provide except more velocity and, um... more energy...).

Varmint bullets can cause dramatic kills IF they penetrate to the vitals before blowing up.  If they fail to penetrate first, they can cause nasty wounds that may - or may not - be fatal.  In the latter case, death may come hours or even days later and may be a result of infection rather than the injury itself.

One reason I would prefer, say, a 70g TSX in the .224 is that it will likely transfer more energy in a shorter time frame than a 1000fps .44 hardcast.  A 1000fps 240g .44 hardcast cannot transfer more energy than it starts with (533fpe) and in fact, if it exits, must transfer something less.  A 3359fps 70g TSX starts out with 1754fps.  It will penetrate well and in most cases probably exit.   

There is a reason hunters in Africa use .45's but not the .45ACP.  The .45-70 has taken the Big 5 with Garrett hardcast ammo but I haven't heard of anyone doing the same with the .45ACP and wadcutters...  :D



Coyote Hunter
NRA, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18244
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2007, 11:16:31 AM »
Dam yuz gise is just to entalagant fer me. Ims gonna hav to tak one of dem dare callage lernen lessons sos i can shoots me soom deres. cause it would be about impossible to figure out what kills an animal without a physics lesson. Guess while you were all in school i just had to learn the other way. By shooting hunting and killing game. Energy doesnt kill anything. Putting a hole threw something vital does and it doesnt take much of a hole!! Never bougtht into the faster is better theroy. If thats what tips your boat so be it. Just keep in mind that theres a few of us on here that use our own experience in the field to make judgements not a quote from Isac Newton
blue lives matter

Offline jvs

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1539
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #26 on: January 13, 2007, 12:52:05 PM »
I have been shooting CoreLokt's ever since I bought my .35, many years ago.   But I bought a box of LE, just to see how they go.   I don't care about extra range, trajectery or perceived energy.  I was looking at be able to load pointed rounds in a tube magazine.

I can say this though, at $21 a box + tax, I don't see spending that kind of extra money just for the ability of loading pointed bullets in a tube. I could practice with regular pointed ammo, and only load one shell in the rifle for hunting, which is all I have ever needed and is all anyone should need. 

LE's were worth a try, but it will be back to CoreLokt's, once the novelty of one box of new stuff wears off.  Basically because a deer shot at more than 75 yds around here is considered a long shot.  If I do go somewhere that I think a longer-open shot may be possible, I take something like the 308 or 06.

I base my purchases solely on economics, and since I can reload .35 corelokt's, which is NOT an option at this time for LE's, I will just go with what costs less.

I beleive that, sooner or later, it won't matter with the price of ammo going up.  It will all be personal preference.  And buying loaded ammo through the mail takes on the added expense of the $20 HazMat fee, which, in my mind, makes mail order ammo alot more expensive than firing up the car and driving for a box of corelokt's.
 If you want to run with the Wolves, you can't Pee with the Puppies.

Online Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26939
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #27 on: January 13, 2007, 01:11:53 PM »
No hazmat fee on loaded ammo or for that matter on primed cases. It only applies to boxed primers and powder.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline Coyote Hunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2534
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2007, 01:25:43 PM »
…Energy doesnt kill anything. Putting a hole threw something vital does and it doesnt take much of a hole!! …

So you would go hunting Cape Buffalo with a .45 ACP and a 230g FMJ rather than a .458 Win and a Hornady 500g FMJ because the hole size is all that matters?


Coyote Hunter
NRA, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

Offline Camel 23

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
Re: Is it the ammo or the gun?
« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2007, 03:07:30 PM »
…Energy doesnt kill anything. Putting a hole threw something vital does and it doesnt take much of a hole!! …

So you would go hunting Cape Buffalo with a .45 ACP and a 230g FMJ rather than a .458 Win and a Hornady 500g FMJ because the hole size is all that matters?




If the hole goes all the way through!