Why switch to a different weight bullet? What does a bullets energy give us?

[Koda]

C'mon Koda. Off topic is what we do best around here.

I know, Im typically flexible on that once the subject has been covered or answered.

 

[oremike]

Energy is a component of ballistics and does affect terminal performance thats just science. You can have the best bullet design for penetration but at some point there is a minimum amount of energy required to punch thru heavy bone for example.

I dont really want to go down the rabbit hole of whats the least amount of energy or caliber to ethically hunt with. Im more interested in learning if differences in energy have a significant impact on terminal performance to influence choosing a bullet to handload and hunt with. It may very well be in most big game calibers energy will always be above a certain threshold, but then why do people often choose a heavier bullet?

In my case I do like heavy for caliber bullets in my mind at reasonable distances I think they hit harder. For my 300 the 180's and 200's are close enough that I just want to load the ones my rifle likes best.

 

[Koda]

If you have a dialed-in load, going to a different bullet makes little sense.

This is what Im thinking and just trying to justify putting the idea of switching to rest.
Example: my 280ai elk rifle Im using a 140gn Hammer bullet at 3200fps MV. When I run MV estimates for same bullet but heavier I dont really see a huge improvement in terminal velocity or energy at any distance, its not until I get out past distances Id even consider hunting do I see at least 100ftlbs of improvement in energy.

Im pretty much answering my own question here but just wondering if theres something Im not seeing or missing? Is it worth it for me to switch to a heavier bullet for elk?

 

[Koda]

3) Energy is CERTAINLY a factor in killing power and is not "meaningless". Never an "acid test" for killing power (as was done frequently in the past, even by Game Commissions writing caliber regulations) it is only a segment of the characteristics of a projectile that result in a kill. Energy contributes to penetration. Energy contributes to expansion. "Super bullets" enjoy no magic exemption. Energy's contribution to the killing process cannot in any way be written off as without meaning.

Do you have any estimates/opinion on what different energy values affect your choice on choosing a bullet weight?
Lets say you could get 150 more ft/lbs of terminal energy at the distance your comfortable hunting with, would that be enough for you to say it would be better to switch to that bullet?

 

[orygun]

Energy is a component of ballistics and does affect terminal performance thats just science.

I dont really want to go down the rabbit hole of whats the least amount of energy or caliber to ethically hunt with. Im more interested in learning if differences in energy have a significant impact on terminal performance to influence choosing a bullet to handload and hunt with. It may very well be in most big game calibers energy will always be above a certain threshold, but then why do people often choose a heavier bullet?

Im pretty much answering my own question here but just wondering if theres something Im not seeing or missing? Is it worth it for me to switch to a heavier bullet for elk?

In a given caliber a heavier bullet will likely carry comparable energy and has the ability to penetrate farther/deeper. That's a good trait for an elk hunting bullet.
There does come a trade off when the bullet is too heavy for the cartridge and loses to much in the way of velocity.

 

[lucusloc]

1) "brush busting capability". THIS is the phrase that needs to be "put to bed". There is no such thing, and there never has been any such thing. As far as traveling through a barrier of brush and arriving at the point of aim (and undamaged toward terminal performance), heavy bullets are NO advantage. Solid bullets are NO advantage.. Large caliber bullets are of NO advantage. Numerous tests have been accomplished regarding this phrase. All conclude that ALL bullets are severely affected by ANY impact on the way to the target. The most comprehensive of these tests (done by Jim Carmichael) came to that conclusion, but did name a "better loser" as to calibers/bullets tried. It was the .264 Winchester magnum with a 140gr hollowpoint. This result illustrates the fallacy of "brush busting capability" best. DON"T shoot through brush.

2) In "olden times" weight of the bullet was the primary factor in penetration. Not today. Bullet design can override a weight advantage toward penetration easily.

3) Energy is CERTAINLY a factor in killing power and is not "meaningless". Never an "acid test" for killing power (as was done frequently in the past, even by Game Commissions writing caliber regulations) it is only a segment of the characteristics of a projectile that result in a kill. Energy contributes to penetration. Energy contributes to expansion. "Super bullets" enjoy no magic exemption. Energy's contribution to the killing process cannot in any way be written off as without meaning.

No charge for this service, Drive Safely.

The first paragraph of my comment was made assuming you were using the same type of bullet in different weights. Heavier weights of the same type of bullet will indeed penetrate deeper and are deflected by brush less than lighter variants of the same type. That is just physics. I agree that bullet selection is very important for application and that needs to be a primary consideration for any load you are working up, but that is not as important when trying to understand the difference between velocity and mass as a physics concept, which is what I was trying to explain first. There are lots of rules of thumb I completely glossed over, like shot placement being far more important than basically all other factors, but again I skipped them because I was concentrating more on the physics of the situation rather than all the other important factors.

Brush-busting can be very important for certain types of hunt. Are you going into the bush to try and flush a big mean old bore, and may find yourself in close proximity in a dense environment? You probably want a big, fat ol' solid cast bullet that will blow through any minor branches without much care to arrive at the beast with as much energy as possible regardless of deviation or instability. I do not know about you but that would be far more preferable a situation than using a small, fast expanding bullet that will fragment on the smallest twig only to deliver a fine mist of metal flakes to the angry animal.

Yes, "brush-busting" is not a thing if your are trying to design a load that will hit a twig half way between you and a distant target and you still want that bullet to arrive on target and unmolested, but for close range, "dangerous game" style hunts it is a real thing that should be taken into consideration.

 

[Bobbygun]

Back on topic. I've rarely been in a position where I'm thinking about using a heavier bullet. For most of my elk and bear hunting when not using a bow, I've used 180 grain Nosler Partitions (because that was the most popular weight of bullet in readily available factory ammunition for my .300 Weatherby). I use a .25-06 Remington for deer with a 117 grain Sierra Pro Hunter (now discontinued, but I stocked up). Both of those I have had excellent results with. I'm somewhat of a curmudgeon from the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp. I can tell from your (the O.P.) posts that you are much more inquisitive than I am. The only changes I have considered over the years were with lighter bullets and reduced loads for my kids when they were little, not heavier bullets. My son killed a nice 5-point Roosevelt bull with a .25-06 using those 117 grain Sierras when he was 12 years old. Most of his practicing came with an 87 grain bullet with a reduced recoil recipe I found in an issue of Guns and Ammo. He was small for his age when he was younger.

If you use Google searching for "best bullet weight for elk" you will get a myriad of results. My personal feeling is - elk are tough animals. I don't plan on shooting from outrageous distances, so using a quality-constructed heavier bullet that can get the job done without excessive recoil is what I'm looking for. In my case, that's the 180 grain Nosler Partition, a tried-and-true bullet that I happen to have what is for me a lifetime supply of in my reloading bench. I do acknowledge that there are a plethora of quality bullets out there that make using lighter bullets and smaller (than a .300 Wby) caliber rifles a viable option. I just don't see the need to change. (Yeah, that can drive my golfing/shooting/whatever buddies a little nuts sometimes.)

 

[lucusloc]

with todays super bullets why would anybody care about ft. pounds of energy? a meaningless term that should be put to bed.

Energy delivery is a super complex yet important factor in all terminal ballistics. It can be the difference between a killing blow and a wounding blow for the same shot placement. The raw energy contained within the projectile is not the only factor, as energy delivery during the impact is also super important, but you cannot deliver energy you do not have regardless of your terminal performance, so having a lot on arrival just means you have more to work with when trying to damage the target.

So yes, in most cases a high energy projectile that punches a nice clean hole to carry a lot of energy out past the target is far less desirable than a lower energy projectile that effectively delivers all its energy right the the vitals depth,but if we select our projectile correctly that higher energy loading should be more reliable than a lower energy one due to having more available damage potential.

Yes, modern bullets simplify things in that they give you a lot more leeway to effectively deliver whatever energy you have. But when you get into the minutia of the physics behind them they actually make the whole situation a lot more complex, what with delayed expansion, multi-stage expansion, dynamic and controlled terminal instability. . . I m not even sure the white coats coming up with all this stuff fully understand what is going on.

Suffice to say energy is still quite important, but modern bullet selection does give you much wider margins than what was possible in the past.

 

[Spitpatch]

so how did your hunt with 256 win mag turn out?

Which one?





Thanks for asking. The cartridge kills everything it is directed at.

With respect to @Koda (towards being on topic), the .256 is a recent example of mine where I was happy with a load but changed it to a lighter bullet. The Pronghorn was killed with a 75gr Hornady VMax (driven at .256 velocities it performs like a very good big game bullet, penetrating and expanding).

When "The Wolfer" was built, the Seirra 70gr BlitzKing had been introduced. Magazine length concerns have been at the forefront when loading sharp-nosed bullets in both of these rifles. (I buff the plastic tips to a sort of semi-spitzer).

Having pretty much decided big game ventures with the .256 are over with, I had no problem switching the Wolfer's load to the Sierra. A bit more velocity, and a somewhat shorter bullet overall allowed seating depth to be decreased (still with a buffed tip), and the ogive closer to the lands.

You'll find no arguments from the reclining gentlemen in these photos.

 

[Spitpatch]

Do you have any estimates/opinion on what different energy values affect your choice on choosing a bullet weight?
Lets say you could get 150 more ft/lbs of terminal energy at the distance your comfortable hunting with, would that be enough for you to say it would be better to switch to that bullet

If the accuracy holds up (compared to the old load), and that 150lbs is arrived at with little expense (monetary and effect on the shooter), it seems attractive.

But not at the expense of any known terminal performance of the bullet. (If it arrives hitting harder but fails to expand like "Ol' Reliable", there is no benefit.)

 

[Koda]

In a given caliber a heavier bullet will likely carry comparable energy and has the ability to penetrate farther/deeper. That's a good trait for an elk hunting bullet.
There does come a trade off when the bullet is too heavy for the cartridge and loses to much in the way of velocity.

This and other comments confirm energy is a metric of penetration, this makes sense.

Im still trying to decide if its worth the time to switch but it sounds like its not worth it if I have a good load even if lighter weight the faster velocity is keeping its energy comparable to its heavier counterparts. Its difficult to estimate muzzle velocities that a rifle would get to really compare, on paper.

 

[Koda]

If the accuracy holds up (compared to the old load), and that 150lbs is arrived at with little expense (monetary and effect on the shooter), it seems attractive.

But not at the expense of any known terminal performance of the bullet. (If it arrives hitting harder but fails to expand like "Ol' Reliable", there is no benefit.)

This is where I'm at. FWIW I'm not worried about terminal performance with the Hammer bullets I'm using.

They came out with a tipped version of my bullet that protects the hollowpoint meplat which is an attractive feature so I'm debating also the heavier option too since my 280ai will be a dedicated elk rifle.
Its difficult to estimate what muzzle velocities I will get in my rifle but when I estimate in a ballistic calculator I'm not seeing huge energy differences with reasonable MV estimates. A slight improvement yes, but I think from this discussion I will probably stay with what I have to save time and money.

For example:
My current load: 140gn Hammer at 3200fps at 600yds gives me 2120fps and 1397ft/lbs of energy.

Their 162gn tipped version at a modest MV estimate of 2900fps results in 2027fps and 1478ft/lbs of energy at 600yds. A difference of 81ftlbs.


note: 600yds for down range comparison only not what I will hunt at. Within reasonable hunting distances the differences is even less. The trade off is probably more recoil.

 

[Spitpatch]

At the basic level, my Uncle hunted big game his entire life with an '03 Springfield (NOT sporterized).

All his hunting partners (including myself) questioned his choice of 150gr bullets for Elk (actually for everything, and would not change to 180's for Elk).

I just knew that a 165 would be "better", and tried to convince him. HE dug out the factory charts (not a handloader himself) and confirmed for himself (and enlightened me) as to the energy factors.

Equipped with the certain knowledge that a Remington 150gr CorLokt shot clean through every elk he ever killed, as well as noticeable increased recoil for the 180's, he was NOT going to switch. He had accuracy, penetration, expansion and foot-pounds,

And a whole lot of dead elk.

Post Script: (sorry @Koda ) ...and he knew that shooting through brush at unwounded game (and in the absence of a threat) is a fool's errand.

 

[oremike]

A different place I'm going to use a lighter bullet is I might see about a Pig Hunt in (shudder) California. If so I'll need lead free bullets. I have a bunch of the Llehigh 102gr Controlled Chaos bullets for my 25-06 to develop a load for, you know when I find that round to it. Normally I shoot the Hornady 117's.

 

[Spitpatch]

This is where I'm at. FWIW I'm not worried about terminal performance with the Hammer bullets I'm using.

They came out with a tipped version of my bullet that protects the hollowpoint meplat which is an attractive feature so I'm debating also the heavier option too since my 280ai will be a dedicated elk rifle.
Its difficult to estimate what muzzle velocities I will get in my rifle but when I estimate in a ballistic calculator I'm not seeing huge energy differences with reasonable MV estimates. A slight improvement yes, but I think from this discussion I will probably stay with what I have to save time and money.

For example:
My current load: 140gn Hammer at 3200fps at 600yds gives me 2120fps and 1397ft/lbs of energy.

Their 162gn tipped version at a modest MV estimate of 2900fps results in 2027fps and 1478ft/lbs of energy at 600yds. A difference of 81ftlbs.


note: 600yds for down range comparison only not what I will hunt at. Within reasonable hunting distances the differences is even less. The trade off is probably more recoil.

Have YOU shot them into anything at range-impact velocities? (I know they're expensive, but I wouldn't rest on the maker's claims.)

 

[P7M13]

This is what Im thinking and just trying to justify putting the idea of switching to rest.
Example: my 280ai elk rifle Im using a 140gn Hammer bullet at 3200fps MV. When I run MV estimates for same bullet but heavier I dont really see a huge improvement in terminal velocity or energy at any distance, its not until I get out past distances Id even consider hunting do I see at least 100ftlbs of improvement in energy.

Im pretty much answering my own question here but just wondering if theres something Im not seeing or missing? Is it worth it for me to switch to a heavier bullet for elk?

A heavier bullet will buck the wind better, which will make a big difference over 400-800 yards.
Run the calcs on your favorite ballistic calculator to get a 'fer instance'.

 

[Koda]

Have YOU shot them into anything at range-impact velocities? (I know they're expensive, but I wouldn't rest on the maker's claims.)

No, I recently switched to Hammers and havent used them on game yet. I am not resting my choice on the makers claims, there are many reviews on Hammers out there from hunters that was an influence in my choice to use them.

 

[Koda]

A heavier bullet will buck the wind better, which will make a big difference over 400-800 yards.
Run the calcs on your favorite ballistic calculator to get a 'fer instance'.

They will a little, but what I understand is BC has more influence on reducing wind drift?
I dont mind including elements for performance that are beyond my ability but I dont think I will ever take a shot on game past 400yds on a windless day. I would have to become really really good at guessing the wind so I will save that idea for another day.

 

[crstrode]

Apparently, in the Northwest, math and science is either not taught in school, or a grade of "F" is a passing grade.

If energy is not important, then shooting cartridges without powder or primer kills just as well as a hot magnum . . . sheeesh!

 

[Koda]

At the basic level, my Uncle hunted big game his entire life with an '03 Springfield (NOT sporterized).

All his hunting partners (including myself) questioned his choice of 150gr bullets for Elk (actually for everything, and would not change to 180's for Elk).

I just knew that a 165 would be "better", and tried to convince him. HE dug out the factory charts (not a handloader himself) and confirmed for himself (and enlightened me) as to the energy factors.

Equipped with the certain knowledge that a Remington 150gr CorLokt shot clean through every elk he ever killed, as well as noticeable increased recoil for the 180's, he was NOT going to switch. He had accuracy, penetration, expansion and foot-pounds,

And a whole lot of dead elk.

Post Script: (sorry @Koda ) ...and he knew that shooting through brush at unwounded game (and in the absence of a threat) is a fool's errand.

I find a lot of your experiences and ability to articulate them invaluable. I think this answers my questions for this subject.

edit to add: this was a real world experience that directly answers my question. You cant get that from ballistic calculators. I find this type of hunting lore invaluable.