It's a question of physics. Or is it?

[psalm69]

After reading many posts both here and elsewhere on the Internet about the question of using a .223 I began to think about the physics of it all.

I looked on the Hornaday site for some sample load data in an effort to compare the diminuitive .223 Remington and the flying freight train: the .454 Casull.

In our hypothetical situtation we are restricted to a text book lung shot behind the shoulder at 100 yards only.

We'll also assume that each bullet I'm about to present mushrooms as we would like it to.

The .223 is a 75 gr HPBT that imparts 1092 ft-lbs on its target at 100 yards.
 
The .454 is 240 grain variety that imparts 1172 ft-lbs on its target at 100 yards.

The difference is, in my mind, a negligible 80 ft -lbs. And in theory over 1000 ft-lbs in each cartridge would have enough force to do the job. Also keep in mind that force is nothing more that Mass x Velocity (F=MA) and nothing more.

Here is where the question comes. I would be willing to bet each of you a quarter that the consensus would be to pick the .454 over the .223. But why? Is it because the size of the hole made would be bigger with the .454 (240 gr vs. 75 gr) or is it because the trend for many hunters has been to believe that bigger is better, hence the S&W 500 (I won't even go there) without really thinking about what is going on at the moment of impact.

I would also mention that - in my mind- a hole placed at our hypothetical perfect shot location whether the size of a silver dollar or the size of a softball will have equal lethality.

BTW I have both and shoot them equally.

Well what do you guys think?

[Lawdog]

psalm69,

Theoretical physics can be made to prove most anything but in reality it often falls flat on it’s face.  A high speed .224 bullets(even a 75 gr HPBT) makes a extremely small entrance hole, small wound channel, less shock value and the bullets are more fragile than a .454 240 gr. bullet.  More deer are wounded lost every year by people using centerfire .224 cartridges than the larger cartridges.  It takes a experienced hunter that is a better than average shot to wait until he has the right angle to place his shot where it is needed.  It is a bad idea to ever use any .224 centerfire for the taking of big game.  Lawdog
 

[Gregory]

The .223 is a 75 gr HPBT that imparts 1092 ft-lbs on its target at 100 yards.
The .454 is 240 grain variety that imparts 1172 ft-lbs on its target at 100 yards.
Well what do you guys think?

I think your comparing ENERGY levels and that is computed by mass X velocity squared.  So the 223 benefits from it's 3000 fps velocity to attain the same energy as the slower but more massive 454 slug.  No one would question that the 454 will impart more tissue damage than the 223 slug and that makes it a more effective projectile.  Both will kill deer, but I wouldn't pick the 223 if i had other choices available.

[THE#1hunter]

Lawdog does have a good point, but like I said before...if you respect and have confidence in your weapon, and you make a good shot...thats all that matters..(in most cases)[/i]

[Graybeard]

Paper energy has never killed anything but a few water filled balloons and bottles and maybe some innocent fruit just to see it explode. It's about the most worthless number you can look at when deciding how well a bullet will kill game.

The ONLY thing that kills game is:

1. Disruption of the Central Nervous System (CNS)
2. Tissue damage resulting in blood loss which in turn shuts down the CNS.

That's it. As simple as that. Nothing else kills game. Paper energy has nothing to do with it.

[IntrepidWizard]

Would you rather be hit with 65 gr moving at 3000ft.sec or a bowling ball moving at 500 ft.sec?

[Questor]

If we're limiting the discussion to physics, then my comment is that you need to add the rest of the variables.

[IntrepidWizard]

add the rest of the variables.---Which have to do with mostly physics.

[psalm69]

Gentlemen,
              Keep in mind that this was intended to a hypothetical post talking about the force of the projectile on impact. Not a subjective, "Well I wouldn't use that bullet cuz its too small." or "Paper energy never killed anything". The math is the math and I would contend that a hole the size of a golf ball PUT IN THE RIGHT Place has the exact same effect as the hole that is PUT IN THE SAME PLACE, but is the size of a grapefuit: lethal.

My fault my equation should have been a little more specific. Mass x Acceleration = Force. Or more specifically kg x m/s^2 where:

kg = kilograms = mass

multiplied by

m/s^2 = meters per second squared = acceleration

= force

So my original question still goes unanswered. In spite of the math. Are more folks inclined to go for a bigger weapon because of a prevailing "bigger is better" mentality?

[Robert357]

The difference is, in my mind, a negligible 80 ft -lbs. And in theory over 1000 ft-lbs in each cartridge would have enough force to do the job. Also keep in mind that force is nothing more that Mass x Velocity (F=MA) and nothing more.

Here is where the question comes. I would be willing to bet each of you a quarter that the consensus would be to pick the .454 over the .223. But why? Is it because the size of the hole made would be bigger with the .454 (240 gr vs. 75 gr) or is it because the trend for many hunters has been to believe that bigger is better, hence the S&W 500 (I won't even go there) without really thinking about what is going on at the moment of impact.


Well what do you guys think?

Let's look at three approaches.  The Grand daddy of all lethality studies was the 1904 Thompson-LaGarde Report presented to General William Crozier.  This established the basis for the Army slecting the 45ACP.

The Analysis was based upon test firings of 9mm Luger, Colt 38 Model 1903 Army revolver, Colt 38 Military Model 1902 Semi-Automatic pistols, Colt 45 New Service Revolvers, Colt 455 new Servive Revolver, and Colt 476 New Service revolver. The tests occurred prior to and did not use 45 ACP.

I have a copy of the report.  While many would argue that the report said a larger caliber (i.e. bigger hole) is better, you can also read the report to say that a heavier bullet is better.  Back in the old days with limited powder choices, a bigger diameter bullet was a heavier bullet.  NOT SO TODAY!   I handload 200 grain +P+ 357 Magnum loads that would have distored the Thompson-LaGarde Repot.

Another popular (in some circles) and reviled in others study is the  Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow's book on Stopping Power.  They conclude that faster is much much better and have a kenetic energy concept.  One can argue with their selection of shooting for their comparisons, but they have a lot of folks attension.  They generally conclude that just about any rifle bullet (which travels a hell of a lot faster) is better than most handgun bullets.

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp

Now, the following is an interesting website that discusses wounding theory in more detail than most ever want to know.

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

I would like to draw your attension to a section on Mechanics of Lethal Wounding.

"Other than hits to the central nervous system (brain and spine) or the mechanism of pulmonary embolism, the only reliable cause of rapid death is through hemorrhaging produced by cutting a hole through major blood-bearing organs (heart, lungs, liver) or major blood vessels. The dimensions and especially the location of the cavity produced by the bullet will determine the rate of hemorrhaging and in turn the rapidity of the onset of death. It is actually more lethal to sever the arteries directly above the heart, than to penetrate the heart itself. If these arteries are cut, blood pressure instantly drops to zero and death will follow in seconds (this is one reason why an arrow can kill as fast as a bullet). Lethal hemorrhaging does not depend upon how much blood exits the body, but only upon the loss of blood pressure..."

The author/engineer/research scientist then later in the website goes on to discuss the pros & cons of all the major wounding theories. It is a long technical read, but worth a few days of effort.

I have found this website to be one of the best discussions of what should work and what should not work in killing with the use of firearms.

I think that the above website will discuss the physics of what you want to know in great detail.

Good luck.  Personally, my cloclusion from all my research is I like really heavy bullet that provide lots of penetration.

[Prof. Fuller Bullspit]

The major flaw in your equation is:

"We'll also assume that each bullet I'm about to present mushrooms as we would like it to. "

Bullets for the .223 are not typically constructed in a way to ensure textbook perfect performance on large game.

If you could ensure that the .223 bullet would penetrate to the vitals without blowing up but expanding to the size you want it to while retaining its mass and then continue penetrating at that expanded size without shedding its mass through the heart/lung area expending all of its energy there in the vitals then you would be correct. The .223 would be a fine large game round.

In the real world, the .223 often blows up upon hitting solid muscle and bone, loses its mass and fails to penetrate the vitals and causing sufficient tissue damage to ensure a rapid death to the large game animal.

[BruceP]

O.K. so you want to keep this discussion only on the basis of physics. Then lets look at the other end of the physics of shooting (killing) an animal. To kill an animal we will all agree the bullet will have to penetrate to the vitals. Now we are dealing with the deceleration of the bullet when meeting resistance. If we even go as far as to change the cartridges to give the small bullet an advantage in energy and use a 22-250 with the 75 gr bullet and a 45/70 with a 400 gr. bullet at factory levels. The 22-250 has more energy than the 45/70 (yes that is the undeniable physics of it).
To include the argument of bullet placement we'll say it is exactly the same, and we'll even say that the 75 gr bullet does NOT blow up or over expand but holds together and retains 100% of its weight (which we all know it wont do, but we are talking only physics) Now which bullet do you think will keep its momentum and penetrate through the shoulder joint and on into the vitals of that grizzly that is charging you. I don't know about the rest of you, but if those were my choices I'm going to bet my life, literally on the one with the lowest amount of energy. but that's just me you can do what you feel is best for you.
BruceP

[jhalcott]

Having shot deer with both the 223 and the 45-70 I can tell you that there ain't a lot of difference in a dead deer! period! BUT the physics on the other end of the gun is what gets ME! Using a T/C contender in both calibers the recoil forces are vastly different. A person can get hurt shooting a caliber that recoils fiercely.Not all shots are text book, arm extended and directly in front of the shooter.The shooter WILL experience tremors in the hand/arm IF he expects a lot of recoil.Now if you rig the gun up to be remotely fired, you may have something.

[psalm69]

So then mathmatically speaking, Bruce, it's the conservation of momentum that gives the bigger calibers a distict advantage: ie Newton's First Law of Motion or said another way, the bullets inertia at point of impact.

Now we are getting somewhere.

[Glanceblamm]

So then mathmatically speaking, Bruce, it's the conservation of momentum that gives the bigger calibers a distict advantage: ie Newton's First Law of Motion or said another way, the bullets inertia at point of impact.

You are now on the right track but it is also where the old but interesting Large bore/Small bore arguments begin.
With a reasonable bullet weight, and more velocity, the deer may go down quicker (in it's tracks) due to disruption of the central nervous system (CNS-or hydroshock if you will) Rather than from tissue damage resulting in blood loss (the deer runs some distance) which may happen when shot with a larger but slower caliber.

[LMM]

Would you rather be hit with 65 gr moving at 3000ft.sec or a bowling ball moving at 500 ft.sec?

Neither!

[LMM]

.......More deer are wounded lost every year by people using centerfire .224 cartridges than the larger cartridges...........

Where did that stat come from?

I would argue that more deer are wounded and lost from shotgun slugs than any rifle cartridge.

[leverfan]

Punching a hole through vital tissue kills.  Using a bullet that can punch that hole from any angle provides a safety margin, especially if you have to drop a wounded animal that's fleeing straight away from you.  Maybe some of you are such wonderful, expert shots that this doesn't occur when you shoot game, so just imagine that you have to help out a friend with a jammed gun after he or she has wounded an animal.

I would never shoot an unwounded animal up the tail pipe, but I still use loads that will easily penetrate to vitals from this angle.  When I'm hunting medium/large game, I don't want to recover any bullets, unless I had to shoot an animal from end to end.  Even then, if I shoot at a fleeing animal, I don't want to find the bullet, I want to find a third nostril.  Consistent, deep, straight-line penetration will put more game on the table more reliably than any other type of bullet performance, assuming the shooter can hit a vital area.  A broad meplat increases the chances that your bullet's path of destruction will intersect with vital tissue, so wider is better.  Sectional density improves penetration, so that means longer is better.

Dang, I guess bigger is better, if you can hang on to it when it goes off.  If everything goes right, a .223 will take most of the animals that walk or swim.  If something goes wrong, there are a host of cartridges that are much better at making things right.

[WD45]

OK... now I have been thinking way to hard and I have a headache
Dont forget those physics people been trying to tell bumble bees it is impossible for them to fly for years .... Theory aint always reality :lol:

[Raging480]

It is my opinion, that if you really want to learn more about this, slowly put down the chalk, step away from your chalkboard, and get out in the woods.

[S.S.]

Good luck arguing this point.........
On another forum concerning self defense issues,
I have seen this point come up several times.
Bigger & slower VS. Faster & smaller..
I am sure that most of us can agree that a deer
that is perfectly shot with either is going to die.
The question is when?
Most high velocity small bore projectiles will inflict
a terrible surface/impact wound and leave no exit wound
due to the desintigration of the bullet. The Hydrostatic
shockwave is substantial. But if the shockwave is not enough
to shut down the CNS, the animal will probably die a much
slower death by bleeding out. A larger slower moving projectile
is more prone to create a more substantial and longer
lasting shockwave. I have used this example many times before,
Take a sling-shot and shoot a marble straight down off the diving board into a pool. Chances are you may get a little splash and virtually
no Ripple on the surface. (Ripple being the hydrostatic shockwave).
Now hold a cement block straight out in front of you and drop it.
You will probably have to change clothes and I am pretty sure
that the shockwave will make it to all sides of the pool.
I know that this is a simplistic example, but the results cannot be
argued. A larger slow moving projectile will always, without
exception make a more disruptive impact.
As I said before, The smaller faster projectile creates a substantial
shockwave in its own right, but it is concentrated in a cone shape
in front of the projectile, Not radiating outward from the point of impact.

[44hunter]

Another way to look at it is to compare a bass boat going down the river at 60mph and a barge going 5mph the wake or hydrostatic shock wave coming off the barge is much greater than the bass boat and does more damage to the shore line. The wake created by a larger flat nose bullet does a lot of damage and gives you a quick clean kill by making a massive wound channel.

[Lawdog]

LMM,

Where did that stat come from?

From talking to many state game biologist at check point stations in over 40 years of hunting, reports from hunters using .224 centerfires and my own experiences.  Small groups and tight lines to you.  Lawdog
 

[PaulS]

After reading many posts both here and elsewhere on the Internet about the question of using a .223 I began to think about the physics of it all.

I looked on the Hornaday site for some sample load data in an effort to compare the diminuitive .223 Remington and the flying freight train: the .454 Casull.

In our hypothetical situtation we are restricted to a text book lung shot behind the shoulder at 100 yards only.

We'll also assume that each bullet I'm about to present mushrooms as we would like it to.

The .223 is a 75 gr HPBT that imparts 1092 ft-lbs on its target at 100 yards.
 
The .454 is 240 grain variety that imparts 1172 ft-lbs on its target at 100 yards.

The difference is, in my mind, a negligible 80 ft -lbs. And in theory over 1000 ft-lbs in each cartridge would have enough force to do the job. Also keep in mind that force is nothing more that Mass x Velocity (F=MA) and nothing more.

Here is where the question comes. I would be willing to bet each of you a quarter that the consensus would be to pick the .454 over the .223. But why? Is it because the size of the hole made would be bigger with the .454 (240 gr vs. 75 gr) or is it because the trend for many hunters has been to believe that bigger is better, hence the S&W 500 (I won't even go there) without really thinking about what is going on at the moment of impact.

I would also mention that - in my mind- a hole placed at our hypothetical perfect shot location whether the size of a silver dollar or the size of a softball will have equal lethality.

BTW I have both and shoot them equally.

Well what do you guys think?

Kinetic energy does two things - create heat as the velocity is lost in tissue and generate shock. Neither of these things kills game at the levels they are produced by modern weapons. What kills game is damage to vital tissues. Heart, lung and central nervous system. The .223, even if it mushrooms perfectly, produces a very small and shallow wound channel. On the otherhand the .45 caliber bullet produces a signifigantly larger wound channel at the same energy levels.

If you want to carry the small, fast / heavy slow argument to the extreme use a 1/2 grain needle and a 600 grain ball at the same energy levels. Which would you like to get hit with at 1000 ft lbs?

PaulS

[Lone Star]

While most agree that the .223 is a poor killer compared to the .454 (I do too, having killed five deer with a .223), the physics of the issue shouldn't rely on KE.  Momentum is a better measurement of penetration, and the .223 bullet has just 0.36 ps . versus the .454's 1.25 ps.  Thus the .454 will penetrate much deeper - in theory.

The 75-grain bullet has a poor history of expansion, and it simply will not expand at 1100 fps (almost no jacketed rifle bullet will do so).  Without expansion it will just punch a .223" hole through the lungs, giving poor killing power.  Or it may tumble, which cuts penetration dramatically but increases killing power.  The physics of chaos theory needs to be applied heere...

From lots of personal experience, a .45-caliber bullet will kill no deader than a well-placed .223, but it does so much more quickly.  In thich cover the animal shot with the .223 may be lost.  Since it is tissue damage which kills, the minimal tissue damage from the 75-grain bullet limits its effectiveness in energy transfer - is that enough physics?

On a related note, I can't help but comment on the commonly-repeated idea that kinetic energy is a poor predictor of killing power.  No less an authority than John Taylor, author of the famous Taylor KO formula, stated that he believed that kinetic energy was as good and any other "formula" in predicting a cartridge's killing power.  That's not what most folks think he said, but it is a fact.

[leverfan]

On a related note, I can't help but comment on the commonly-repeated idea that kinetic energy is a poor predictor of killing power.  No less an authority than John Taylor, author of the famous Taylor KO formula, stated that he believed that kinetic energy was as good and any other "formula" in predicting a cartridge's killing power.  That's not what most folks think he said, but it is a fact.

Pondoro must be one of the most famous poachers in history.  Here's what Jack O'Connor had to say about him.

"I am convinced that there is more to this guy John Taylor than meets the eye, and I certainly doubt that he was the gungho professional hunter he claimed to be.  The old boy never lets a good story lag in the telling.  I just reread a good deal of Pondoro.  He tells about the great number of lesser kudu that were on the Zambezi.  That's pure applesauce.  There never have been any lesser kudu on the Zambezi-at least in historical times."

To give Taylor his due, I actually agree with him on this.  KE is just as useful as any other "killing power" formula, because pretty much all the formulas are "pure applesauce."

[Questor]

This is an outrage! I demand an apology at once!

Signed,
Q. Questor Quigand, Esq.
Chairman, American Applesauce Institute

[Van/TX]

Penetration is foremost.  1000#'s of energy doesn't kill an animal if vitals aren't messed up. I'd put my bet on a slow moving heavy slug.

Reminds me of the bowhunting arguments about Ft. #'s of energy.   A .22 rimfire produces more K.E than any bow and arrow combo.  But an arrow will cleanly kill the biggest of bruts including Brown Bear with half the K. E.  Think you could kill one with a .22?  :grin: .....Van

[Van/TX]

Lonestar, the .223 would be going much faster than 1100 fps :wink: ....Van

[Mohawk]

If I relied on hydrostatic shock(foot pounds of energy) I would be one dead SOB.