The Rifle Cartridge Killing Power Formula

[quickdtoo]

This is a copy of the full article Chuck Hawks wrote on the subject of relative killing power of different cartridges, the link to the short version is at the bottom of the page.

Tim


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rifle Cartridge Killing Power Formula

By Chuck Hawks

I don't have much faith in killing power formulas in general. Most such formulas are obviously designed to reinforce someone's pre-conceived notions. As a result, these "killing power," "stopping power," "knock out" (or whatever they may be called) formulas typically disregard factors that are detrimental to their case.

I was curious to see what the results would look like if I included the most obvious, easily quantifiable, factors in a simple killing power formula. These factors are velocity, energy, bullet weight, sectional density (SD), and bullet cross-sectional area (frontal area). Upon reflection I realized that since velocity is already the most important factor in calculating kinetic energy, it would not be necessary to incorporate it separately.

That left the factors of energy, bullet weight, SD, and cross-sectional area. Then I received an e-mail from Ole Swang, who is a mathematician, and he pointed out that sectional density and frontal area equal bullet weight. Thus by including bullet weight separately I was, essentially, squaring its value. So I eliminated bullet weight. (But remember that, like velocity, it is actually present in the remaining factors.) That left the numbers for energy, SD, and frontal area to work with.

I am no mathematician; I am hopeless at algebra, and I can barely run a calculator. So whatever I attempted in the way of calculations would have to be simple. The KISS principle at work.

After playing around with those numbers on my hand calculator, I found that if I took energy at 100 yards and multiplied it by bullet sectional density (a fractional number) and bullet cross-sectional area (also a fractional number), the result was a manageable two or three digit number, which I then rounded off to one decimal place. Ergo, the killing power number.

Why, you may ask, did I choose energy at 100 yards instead of at the muzzle, or 200 yards, or someplace else? The answer is that I figured that most CXP2 to CXP4 game is probably killed between 50 and 150 yards. 100 yards is right in the middle of that spread, and energy at 100 yards is included in most ballistics tables, so it's an easy number to use. For our metric readers, 100 meters is only slightly longer than 100 yards, so for all practical purposes the same killing power results will apply at 100 meters as well as 100 yards. If you want to compare the killing power of cartridges at some other distance, just plug-in the energy figures for that distance and work the equation.

Here is the formula:
Energy at 100 yards (in foot pounds) x Sectional Density (taken from reloading manuals) x Bullet Frontal Area (in square inches) = Killing Power figure at 100 yards.

I am convinced that the most important factor in killing power, by far, is bullet placement. The second most important factor is probably bullet terminal performance (the area of the wound channel created by the bullet). The third most important factor is probably the physical and mental state of the game animal in question at the moment it is shot. As most experienced hunters have observed, even a well hit animal can run a long way on a full charge of adrenaline. This formula takes into account none of those factors. Unfortunately, those key factors are not quantifiable, at least by me.

So for the basis of this exercise in futility I am assuming that the hunter knows how to shoot, where to put the bullet, and that the bullet is appropriate for the game and conditions. Honestly, if you don't know where to aim, or can't hit your target, or have chosen an inappropriate bullet for your intended purpose, the killing power of your rifle becomes a moot point. As someone commented about gun fighting, "you can't miss fast enough to win."

I will say that after I had initially calculated the results for a number of common rifle cartridges using the formula above, I was encouraged. The results seemed reasonable in light of my personal research and experience.

I do, for example, think that the standard .24 and .25 caliber cartridges (.243 Win., 6mm Rem., .250 Sav., and .257 Rob.) are just about the minimum practical deer cartridges, that they are far superior to any .22 caliber cartridge for the purpose, and that there is not a great deal to choose between them. Further, I would argue that the .30-30 is an effective 100 yard deer cartridge and that the 7mm-08 represents an increase in killing power over the .30-30. For shooting the largest hoofed game, I would rate the .338 Win. Mag. superior in killing power to the .325 WSM, and I would have to say that the .375 H&H is even deadlier than the .338 Mag.

I think that most experienced and unbiased big game hunters would agree with those statements and, fortunately, the killing power numbers calculated by the formula above tend to verify those assertions. I therefore believe that, although undoubtedly not perfect, these killing power numbers generally seem to have a positive correlation with reality. That alone makes them more useful than most!

Remember that these numbers are the result of an attempt to apply a simple formula to an extremely complex problem--irregularities are bound to result. In any case, these are just numbers derived by an arbitrary formula. Unlike the creators of "pounds-feet," "impulse energy," "hydro-static shock" and other pseudo scientific terms, I want it to be clearly understood that these numbers do not represent any scientific quantity or unit of measurement. Use them as an indicator as seems appropriate, but do not attempt to make them into some sort of killing power dogma.

The list that follows is intended to suggest the relative killing power of various big game hunting cartridges and loads at 100 yards (or meters, if you prefer) when those cartridges are used appropriately. (Cartridge, bullet weight in grains, muzzle velocity in feet per second - killing power number at 100 yards.)

.223 Remington (60 grain at 3000 fps) - 6.3

.223 WSSM (64 grain at 3600 fps) - 10.1

.243 Winchester (87 grain at 3100 fps) - 15.2
.243 Winchester (95 grain at 3100 fps) - 18.3
.243 Winchester (100 grain at 2960 fps) - 18.1

6mm Remington (100 grain at 3100 fps) - 20.0

.243 WSSM (100 grain at 3100 fps) - 20.0

6x62 Freres (100 grain at 3200 fps) - 20.2

.240 Weatherby Magnum (100 grain at 3200 fps) - 20.2
.240 Weatherby Magnum (100 grain at 3406 fps) - 24.5
.25 Remington (117 grain at 2300 fps) - 13.3

.25-35 Winchester (117 grain at 2300 fps) - 13.3

.250 Savage (87 grain at 3000 fps) - 13.8
.250 Savage (100 grain at 2820 fps) - 15.1

.257 Roberts (100 grain at 2900 fps) - 17.4
.257 Roberts +P (115 grain at 2800 fps) - 22.3
.257 Roberts +P (120 grain at 2700 fps) - 22.0

.25 WSSM (115 grain at 3060 fps) - 26.7

.25-06 Remington (115 grain at 3060 fps) - 26.7

.25-06 Remington (120 grain at 2990 fps) - 26.5

.257 Weatherby Magnum (115 grain at 3200 fps) - 29.4
.257 Weatherby Magnum (120 grain at 3100 fps) - 29.3
.257 Weatherby Magnum (120 grain at 3305 fps) - 33.4

6.5x55 SE (120 grain at 2890 fps) - 28.0
6.5x55 SE (140 grain at 2700 fps) - 30.7
6.5x55 SE (160 grain at 2500 fps) - 30.9

.260 Remington (140 grain at 2750 fps) - 31.6
.260 Remington (160 grain at 2500 fps) - 30.9

6.5x57 (140 grain at 2700 fps) - 30.7

6.5mm-284 (140 grain at 2900 fps) - 35.6

6.5mm-06 (140 grain at 2900 fps) - 35.6

6.5mm Remington Magnum (120 grain at 3210 fps) - 30.2
6.5mm Remington Magnum (140 grain at 2900 fps) - 35.6

6.5x68 S (140 grain at 2900 fps) - 35.6

.264 Winchester Magnum (140 grain at 3030 fps) - 37.8

.270 Winchester (130 grain at 3150 fps) - 35.0
.270 Winchester (140 grain at 2950 fps) - 37.0
.270 Winchester (150 grain at 2850 fps) - 37.4

.270 WSM (140 grain at 3125 fps) - 40.1

.270 Weatherby Magnum (150 grain at 3245 fps) - 51.4

7x57 Mauser (139 grain at 2800 fps) - 31.7

7mm-08 Remington (140 grain at 2860 fps) - 33.6

.280 Remington (140 grain at 3000 fps) - 37.1

7mm Remington SAUM (150 grain at 3110 fps) - 44.8

7mm WSM (150 grain at 3110 fps) - 44.8

7mm Remington Magnum (139 grain at 3100 fps) - 39.1
7mm Remington Magnum (150 grain at 3110 fps) - 44.8
7mm Remington Magnum (175 grain at 2860 fps) - 53.3

7mm Weatherby Magnum (154 grain at 3260 fps) - 55.3
7mm Weatherby Magnum (175 grain at 3070 fps) - 62.4

7mm STW (140 grain at 3325 fps) - 44.5

7mm Remington Ultra Mag (154 grain at 3260 fps) - 55.3

.30 Carbine (110 grain at 1990 fps) - 7.4

.30-30 Winchester (150 grain at 2390 fps) - 22.8
.30-30 Winchester (170 grain at 2200 fps) - 25.4

.300 Savage (150 grain at 2630 fps) - 30.0

.307 Winchester (170 grain at 2500 fps) - 30.7

.308 Winchester (150 grain at 2820 fps) - 34.7
.308 Winchester (180 grain at 2620 fps) - 46.2

.30-06 Springfield (150 grain at 2920 fps) - 37.3
.30-06 Springfield (180 grain at 2700 fps) - 49.2
.30-06 Springfield (220 grain at 2410 fps) - 54.6

.300 Remington SAUM (150 grain at 3200 fps) - 47.2
.300 Remington SAUM (180 grain at 2960 fps) - 59.5

.300 WSM (150 grain at 3200 fps) - 47.2
.300 WSM (180 grain at 2960 fps) - 59.5

.308 Norma Magnum (180 grain at 2960 fps) - 59.5

.300 H&H Magnum (180 grain at 2960 fps) - 59.5

.300 Winchester Magnum (150 grain at 3200 fps) - 47.2
.300 Winchester Magnum (180 grain at 2960 fps) - 59.5

.300 Weatherby Magnum (180 grain at 3240 fps) - 72.8
.300 Weatherby Magnum (220 grain at 2845 fps) - 77.9

.300 Remington Ultra Mag (180 grain at 3240 fps) - 72.8

7.62x39 Soviet (123 grain at 2365 fps) - 15.7

.303 British (150 grain at 2685 fps) - 33.2
.303 British (180 grain at 2460 fps) - 40.1

.32 Winchester Special (170 at 2250 fps) - 25.4

8x57 JS Mauser (195 grain at 2550 fps) - 52.0

.325 WSM (180 grain at 3060 fps) - 65.3
.325 WSM (200 grain at 2950 fps) - 75.6
.325 WSM (220 grain at 2840 fps) - 81.7

8mm Remington Magnum (200 grain at 2900 fps) - 68.5

.338x57 O'Connor (200 grain at 2400 fps) - 39.7

.338-06 A Square (200 grain at 2750 fps) - 64.9

.338 Winchester Magnum (200 grain at 2960 fps) - 70.3
.338 Winchester Magnum (225 grain at 2800 fps) - 87.4
.338 Winchester Magnum (250 grain at 2650 fps) - 94.8

.340 Weatherby Magnum (250 grain at 2963 fps) - 117.4

.357 Magnum (Rifle) (158 grain at 1830 fps) - 12.7
.357 Magnum (Rifle) (180 grain at 1550 fps) - 9.5

.35 Remington (150 grain at 2300 fps) - 19.8
.35 Remington (200 grain at 2080 fps) - 28.7

.356 Winchester (200 grain at 2460 fps) - 44.6

.358 Winchester (200 grain at 2490 fps) - 47.0

.35 Whelen (200 at 2675 fps) - 56.4
.35 Whelen (250 at 2400 fps) - 75.3

.350 Remington Magnum (200 grain at 2700 fps) - 56.9
.350 Remington Magnum (200 grain at 2770 fps) - 60.9
.350 Remington Magnum (225 grain at 2550 fps) - 69.9
.350 Remington Magnum (225 grain at 2600 fps) - 72.8
.350 Remington Magnum (225 grain at 2640 fps) - 75.1
.350 Remington Magnum (250 grain at 2400 fps) - 76.7
.350 Remington Magnum (250 grain at 2500 fps) - 80.7

9.3x62 (270 grain at 2500 fps) - 92.8

9.3x74R (270 grain at 2300 fps) - 77.5

.375 Winchester (220 grain at 2200 fps) - 40.9

.375 H&H Magnum (270 grain at 2690 fps) - 106.2
.375 H&H Magnum (300 grain at 2530 fps) - 113.0

.376 Steyr (270 grain at 2600 fps) - 102.0

.378 Weatherby Magnum (300 grain at 2925 fps) - 150.5

.38-55 Winchester (220 grain at 1600 fps) - 21.2

.405 Winchester (300 grain at 2200 fps) - 70.7

.416 Remington Magnum (400 grain at 2400 fps) - 188.4

.416 Rigby (400 grain at 2400 fps) - 188.4

.44 Remington Magnum (Rifle) (240 grain at 1760 fps) - 26.4
.44 Remington Magnum (Rifle) (275 grain at 1580 fps) - 31.2

.444 Marlin (240 grain at 2350 fps) - 46.9
.444 Marlin (265 grain at 2325 fps) - 63.4
.444 Marlin (300 grain at 2200 fps) - 74.9

.45-70 Government (300 grain at 1810 fps) - 50.1
.45-70 Government (350 grain at 2100 fps) - 88.9
.45-70 Government (405 grain at 1330 fps) - 55.0

.450 Marlin (350 grain at 2100 fps) - 88.9

.458 Winchester Magnum (350 grain at 2100 fps) - 88.9
.458 Winchester Magnum (500 grain at 2090 fps) - 217.3

.458 Lott (500 grain at 2300 fps) - 228.5

.460 Weatherby Magnum (500 grain at 2600 fps) - 332.3


Post Script: A couple of months after writing this article I chanced on a reference in the July/August 2005 issue of Rifle Shooter magazine to John Wooter's "lethality-factor index formula," of which I was not previously aware. The "L" formula apparently multiplies kinetic energy (in ft. lbs.) x sectional density x bullet diameter (in inches). Thus it incorporates two of the three factors I adopted for my Rifle Cartridge Killing Power Formula, and makes a nod in the direction of the third. (Apparently great minds think alike!)

I did a Google search and was able to discover that Mr. Wooters published his formula in the Jan 1996 issue of Peterson's Hunting magazine. I was not able to discover if the "L" formula was intended to be applied to handgun or rifle cartridges, or both, and I have not been able to locate a copy of the original article.

The difference between the two formulas seems to be that Wooters' chose to include bullet diameter as his third criteria, which has the advantage of being obvious, while I chose to use cross-sectional area, which must be computed (or taken from the list on the Tables, Charts and Lists Page). Both are attempts to take into account the size of the bullet.

Bullet diameter indicates the bullet's frontal area, while cross-sectional area is the bullet's frontal area. So in that sense I suspect that my formula is a bit more precise. But, if I had known about John Wooters earlier work I probably would have just used it as the basis of the table above and not bothered to develop my own killing power formula. I imagine that the comparative results would be quite similar (although perhaps not identical). But I did not.

Chuck Hawks, June 2005

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_killing_power_list.htm

[burntmuch]

Good reading!

[xhare]

Seems logical all in all.  Of course his formula does not take into account the effect of differing types of bullet construction relative to the animal being hunted.  The old penetration vs expansion debate.  The right bullets can make smaller cartridges surprisingly effective on game larger than they were originally intended.  On the other hand, a tough bullet may fly right through a small deer acting more like a full metal jacket. No formula is every going to account for all variation. 

Read a lot, do your research to pick the right load for your purpose, and practice, practice, practice (ie shoot, shoot, shoot).  Do that and your rifle/cartridge will not let you down.  Now finding your game is another matter all together. 

[Mac11700]

Seems logical all in all.  Of course his formula does not take into account the effect of differing types of bullet construction relative to the animal being hunted.  The old penetration vs expansion debate.  The right bullets can make smaller cartridges surprisingly effective on game larger than they were originally intended.  On the other hand, a tough bullet may fly right through a small deer acting more like a full metal jacket. No formula is every going to account for all variation. 

Read a lot, do your research to pick the right load for your purpose, and practice, practice, practice (ie shoot, shoot, shoot).  Do that and your rifle/cartridge will not let you down.  Now finding your game is another matter all together. 

Your right on this..and without taking that into account..any type of formula will have different results..and the physiology of the animal as he said will have to be figured in as well...What I don't agree with is on is this statement..

I think that most experienced and unbiased big game hunters would agree with those statements and, fortunately, the killing power numbers calculated by the formula above tend to verify those assertions. I therefore believe that, although undoubtedly not perfect, these killing power numbers generally seem to have a positive correlation with reality. That alone makes them more useful than most!

Somehow he feels that to disagree with him and his theory..makes one biased or in experienced.. Which is typical from his site ... A 60 grain Nosler Partiton shot from a 223 will kill a whitetail just as dead at 100 yards as any other cartridges listed. Poor shots are what wounds deer more than anything else..This fact has been born out time after time with those who participate in the Hunter Education/Youth Hunt programs here in Missouri...The 223 & 243 NEFs are the recommended rifles to be used and these aren't just itty bitty whitetails either we have here...that the weakest cartridge on his list is used for Of course..these are just our new unbiased young people hunting and harvesting Missouri deer...what do they or the State  Conservation people know about it... 

Mac

[Smokin Joe]

OhMyGod, Mac! You're not insinuating that Bullet Placement has anything to do with it, are you?

 


Like my old D.I. said..."six hundred rounds a minute ain't firepower.....one hit is firepower."

[Mac11700]

OhMyGod, Mac! You're not insinuating that Bullet Placement has anything to do with it, are you?

You bet... and bullet construction..and a whole bunch of other things too...
 Seems to me Chuck is just trying to re-invent the wheel...Ee have real formulas that really work..but he is trying to make a new one...... His giving ratings to all the various cartridges then saying not to make anything out of it just is plain dumb..interesting to say the least..but dumb...Of course he wants us to use it...this way he gains notoriety for it...

I want it to be clearly understood that these numbers do not represent any scientific quantity or unit of measurement. Use them as an indicator as seems appropriate, but do not attempt to make them into some sort of killing power dogma.( What does he think people will do with this information? )

..His opening sentence should be a primer to anyone that has a grasp of the English language..

I don't have much faith in killing power formulas in general.( Then why is he bothering to making his own ?) Most such formulas are obviously designed to reinforce someones pre-conceived notions.( Hmm...not all of them..but this one certainly does ? ) As a result, these "killing power," "stopping power," "knock out" (or whatever they may be called) formulas typically disregard factors that are detrimental to their case. ( WoW..just like this one ehh.. )

  I think some might see what I mean...Others might say I was being over critical of his hard work..for the later I will explain a bit.. Bullet frontal diameter and velocity isn't what kills..it's disrupting the CNS that kills...either by massive trauma to the pulmonary system to stop breathing..or a massive wounds that shut the CNS down and stop all electro cordial response..This can and is done by super high velocity and small caliber  bullets all the time...and by his own statement doesn't consider any .223 bullet capable...

I do, for example, think that the standard .24 and .25 caliber cartridges (.243 Win., 6mm Rem., .250 Sav., and .257 Rob.) are just about the minimum practical deer cartridges, that they are far superior to any .22 caliber cartridge for the purpose, and that there is not a great deal to choose between them.

Then he says this..

Remember that these numbers are the result of an attempt to apply a simple formula to an extremely complex problem--irregularities are bound to result. In any case, these are just numbers derived by an arbitrary formula. Unlike the creators of "pounds-feet," "impulse energy," "hydro-static shock" and other pseudo scientific terms,

These aren't really pseudo scientific terms..Lbs-feet is a reference to torque... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pounds-feet&btnG=Google+Search
Perhaps he meant ft.-lbs. of energy applied..since a bullet does really apply energy to an animal when hit...or maybe he doesn't believe that now...

Unit of work or energy

To calculate a foot-pound force, you can use this formula,

    W = F · d

Where W is mechanical work, F is force, and d is distance over which the force is applied (measured in the direction of the force).

[edit] Origins of foot-pound force

The foot-pound force is derived from the original equation of

    Ekin = w · z.

Where Ekin is kinetic energy, w is the weight of the body and z is the average velocity of the falling body times the time of that fall.

These are the factors for w:

    w = m · g / gc

Where w is weight, m is mass, g is the local acceleration of gravity and gc is the dimensional constant.

These are the factors for z:

    z = ½ · v · t

Where as z is the average velocity of the falling body times the time of the fall, ½ is the coefficient to find the average velocity, v is the velocity and t is the time of fall.

When w·z is fully factored to its four units of measure (UOM) then reduced, the two remaining factors left are F and d. With these two variables left, this proves mathematically that energy of motion is force through distance, as in the original experiment of the two falling objects; force though distance

The four UOM are F [force (pound force)], d [distance (foot)], m [mass (pound mass)], t [time (second)].

[edit] Ballistics calculation

To calculate the foot-pound force (ft·lbf) of energy for a bullet in English units of measure; given bullet weight in grains and velocity in feet per second, use the following formula.

    W = ½ m·v²
    energy[ft·lbf] = weight[grf] × (velocity[ft/s])² / (2 × 32.1739 ft/s² × 7000 grf/lbf)

Impulse energy..http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADD014223...hmm doesn't look like Pseudo science to me...wow...did you get this part of the Navy's test and what it was all about..

and rapidly converting that stored energy into kinetic energy of the working fluid for quietly ejecting a projectile along with the stored fluid from the device and into the surrounding fluid medium.

sounds likes what happens to when a bullet passes thru an animal to me...and the Navy is trying to capture that Impulse energy.....maybe Chucks animals are all hollow with nothing in them..

hydro-static shock..Well I'll give him this one,but in name only..The effects are real and measurable....but gun writers  got the name wrong is all..the appropriate name for this is effect is Hydraulic-shock.. and the formula for calculating this is..
P+v((( SG-1 )/2 C+C )

Where P = the maximum surge pressure
          v = the fluid in F.P.S.
          c= the surge wave constant for water at 73* F
          SG = the specific gravity of the fluids involved
          fi SG = 1 then P=VC

This formula has been around for a long time..It was devised as a way of measuring the effects of damage caused by fluids and other things inside pipes when stated and stopped quickly..Since there is massive amounts of fluids,semi solids,and solids on the inside of all living animals..they have a tenancy to move and become displaced..more when a high velocity bullet passes thru an animals vitals...I guess Chuck has forgotten that various parts get blown around inside a deers chest cavity...I wonder what he thinks causes this...? This effect in the deer is the same as what causes the temporary crush cavity that can been seen when a high velocity bullet is shot into ballistic gelatin...This movement also ruptures major arteries and all kinds of secondary blood vessels without the bullet or fragments of the bullet ever physically touching them..and causes the the CNS system to be disrupted and shut down...This also causes paralysis's and  death...Provided the damage is done to them by proper bullet placement into the areas where they are in the animal...ie...the vitals...Big diameter bullets do kill...no doubt about it...but so do little bullets traveling real fast...If you have seen all of those ballistic test that have been done over the years..the smaller the bullet diameter..the bigger the temporary crush cavity is.. Proponents of the little high velocity bullets always talk about them blowing up and not penetrating..this does happens with certain bullet types...but...I am not talking about them...I am talking about either bonded bullets or Partition type...

All of the formulas I posted above are valid and verifiable and used by the scientific community everyday...I guess if I was trying to re-invent the wheel like Chuck is trying...I would try to say they were Pseudo science too...but I'm not...I measure forces applied by the correct formulas...after all..they have worked for many many years...

FWIW...I don't advocate using small calibers on everything..but..certainly do with some animals and at reasonable yardages (100 yards)..and putting the shot into the the area of the vital organs...when using a good constructed bullet that rapidly expands but still holds together like a partition..or maybe a triple shock..(hmmm...I wonder why they gave it that name...?  )

Mac

[quickdtoo]

Here's are simple calculators to determine the Taylor and Thorniley Knock out values of a round.

Tim

http://www.reloadammo.com/tkofactor2.htm

http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/thornily.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_KO_Factor

[Mac11700]

Thanks Quick..I didn't even start on those aspects in my previous post..It was long winded enough

Mac

[DavOh]

Impulse energy..http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADD014223...hmm doesn't look like Pseudo science to me...wow...did you get this part of the Navy's test and what it was all about..

and rapidly converting that stored energy into kinetic energy of the working fluid for quietly ejecting a projectile along with the stored fluid from the device and into the surrounding fluid medium.

sounds likes what happens to when a bullet passes thru an animal to me...and the Navy is trying to capture that Impulse energy.....maybe Chucks animals are all hollow with nothing in them..

hydro-static shock..Well I'll give

So let me get this right... the Navy wanted to use a giant liquid-filled whoopy-cushin to launch torpedos.... And why hasnt that non-pseudo-science on every naval vessel?

Sorry but I dont get the correlation between submarine torpedoes and hunting bullets....  terminal ballistics vs. acceleratory(dont think its a word, but you get my point) ballistics...... apples and oranges by my mind....

But what do I know?

[Mac11700]

It's verifiable terminology Dave..The formulas I posted are real...Hanging a banner of "Pseudo" on it..implies that it isn't...and the reason I object to his terminology...

Pseudoscience is any kind of knowledge, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.[1] Pseudosciences may appear scientific, but they do not adhere to the basic requirements (the testability and repeatability) of the scientific method. As such, since these practices are not proven by the scientific method, they are not considered science until they can be proven by objective evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Taking actual working models of formulas..and applying it to other things and either proving or disproving them is the basis of many great things in our time...I'm not saying what the Navy is working on is a good idea..by an means..but..the point I was making with mentioning it is...there is a way of measuring the energy that is transferred into any medium...and this testing isn't mere supposition..or conjecture..It is done by proven scientific means...

What Chuck is doing is trying to quantify what calibers he thinks should be used on CPX2 & CPX3 game at 100 yards...He is taking what others have said..and not proving or disproving anything...He is using general consensus of what others think and have said as the basis of his formula...and then by using a mathematical means trying to correlate a bullets cross surface & velocity into which is best to kill these animals at 100 yards...So..following the true definition of what Pseudoscience actually is...what he has posted should be considered "Pseudoscience" as well....since he has made assumptions in his reasoning....not all verifiable facts...that he has purposely left out...

Unfortunately, those key factors are not quantifiable, at least by me.

...He cast the aspersions on what has been done before he devised "his" formula by labeling it...."Pseudo"-scientific..which I think discredits a-lot of people..

Mac

[Graybeard]

People who try to assign numbers and rankings to enumerate a relationship between the effectiveness of rifles, handguns or anything else have way too much time on their hands and way too little real world hunting/killing experience. 

[James B]

IMO all of these tables and theories mainly give you a way to compare calibers to each other using the same input for all of them. It still does not really explain the role of bullet weight, bullet velocity, a bullets ability to penetrate and velocity. IMO a bullets ability to penetrate and the often omitted SHOT PLACEMENT will determine the outcome more than anything or everything else. No matter the size, shape and speed of the bullet if it does not hit where it has to. As we all know, big critters can be killed with everything from the 22 short to the 577 T REX.

That said, Thanks for posting that info because I am always interested in adding knowledge to the old wrinkled brain.

[billy_56081]

I'm glad I just take my rifle out and shoot those critters. If I had to think and study that much on what caliber I'm going to use I'd never get out hunting. 

[Mac11700]

I don't mind folks trying to simplify things for folks who have no understanding about ballistics & bullet performance on game..but..not at the expense of others hard work....It's a shame that he fell into the same rut as others usually do..Most of us single shot fans have know for many many many years that bullet placement is the key...We have to wait for the perfect shot...at least most of us do...The .223 calibers have been successfully used with properly constructed bullets on some very large game..and it has never been accepted by those who are dead set against the practice of using small calibers....this debate has been going on for years...even here at GBO...Usually the folks always give 1 reason or another against their usage but mostly is lack penetration and bullet blow up....I personally believe those who are against using it..don't believe those that do use it..can or will hold off for the optimum shot placement at the optimum range and use the proper bullet ..therefore they believe those using it will wound more deer than cleanly harvest them.. Those who use it swear by the lethality of it..and are usually very good marksmen & hunters..and understand it's limitations...We have chosen to limit our shots purposely by using a non-repeating rifle...We have to become more proficient than hunters using a different type rifle...we have only the 1 shot...and have to make sure it is perfect before we pull the trigger....By being proficient..we pay more attention to the yardages & wind and everything else to make our hunts more successful ...and not just "spray & pray" to harvest our game as so many others do......That's just my personal belief..nothing more..

Mac

[nomosendero]

People who try to assign numbers and rankings to enumerate a relationship between the effectiveness of rifles, handguns or anything else have way too much time on their hands and way too little real world hunting/killing experience. 

Yep, I am afraid so. I think Mr. Hawks talks more than he hunts.