Caliber overkill

[Borngeechee]

I'm looking at a hunting show and I know they cut out all the screw ups that us normal folks do but in the end, the guy took a nice sized elk with an arrow. So my question is why do hunters say that certain calibers like .308, .270 etc are too small or minimal for elk? What is that arrow doing at 400fps that a 130gr .270 round flying at 3000fps isnt?

[wildcat junkie]

I'm looking at a hunting show and I know they cut out all the screw ups that us normal folks do but in the end, the guy took a nice sized elk with an arrow. So my question is why do hunters say that certain calibers like .308, .270 etc are too small or minimal for elk? What is that arrow doing at 400fps that a 130gr .270 round flying at 3000fps isnt?

I think the question is one of; What is the worst thing that could happen?

 

A 22rf will kill the biggest buck alive, given proper bullet placement. Some indigenous Alaskan people use the 22rf for moose as the moose doesn't usually run off when hit as there is no shock. It just stands there, oblivious until it bleeds out & falls over.

 

It all boils down to what type of shot angle presents itself. Does the bullet have enough mass to penetrate dense bone to travel through the vitals on a bad hit or a less than optimum shoot angle?

 

A 270 W/a 130gr rapidly expanding/explosive bullet would be marginal. The same cartridge W/a 140 or 150gr bonded bullet would not be.

Edited February 28, 2015 by wildcat junkie

[ATbuckhunter]

Well the reason they say that is because an arrow and a bullet kill in different ways. A bullet kills with shock while an arrow relies on cutting. Wildcat did a good job in explaining .

[wildcat junkie]

Comparing archery tackle to bullet terminal ballistics isn't really a good comparison. Arrows kill by hemorrhage, bullet also impart shock. Archers also are more particular (rightfully so) about range, shot placement & shot angle.

 

Also, kinetic energy of an arrow has far less to do W/leathality than it does W/bullets for that same reason.

 

A test was done on water buffalo carcasses years ago on arrow penetration. the water buffalo was used as it has overlapping ribs that would yield a more consistent result.

 

All sorts of bow & arrow combos were tested from longbows W/very heavy arrow traveling at very modest velocity to tricked out compound bows shooting lightweight arrows at the highest industry velocities. The longbow/heavy arrow proved to be the best at bone penetration.

Edited February 28, 2015 by wildcat junkie

[Mr VJP]

Any weapon will kill within it's limitations.  Arrows are used at close range and kill by causing blood loss.  Often the animal goes quite far before dropping dead.

 

A .308 or .270 will take Elk just fine if you know their limits.  Other cartridges simply allow shots from greater distances.  When fired from long distances, other rounds shoot flatter so less drop needs to be figured, and still have enough energy and velocity to penetrate deep enough to cause the trauma required to drop the animal before it travels too far.

 

Some Eskimos have been know to hunt polar bear by putting sharp whale bones in a frozen ball of blubber and putting it out for a bear to eat.  Once thawed, it punctures the bears stomach and eventually kills it.  The Eskimo will track the bear for days until it drops.  I'm sure they would rather have something in their arsenal that would be more effective.

[growalot]

That was a very good question to get answers to...

[wildcat junkie]

Any weapon will kill within it's limitations.  Arrows are used at close range and kill by causing blood loss.  Often the animal goes quite far before dropping dead.

 

A .308 or .270 will take Elk just fine if you know their limits.  Other cartridges simply allow shots from greater distances.  When fired from long distances, other rounds shoot flatter so less drop needs to be figured, and still have enough energy and velocity to penetrate deep enough to cause the trauma required to drop the animal before it travels too far.

 

Some Eskimos have been know to hunt polar bear by putting sharp whale bones in a frozen ball of blubber and putting it out for a bear to eat.  Once thawed, it punctures the bears stomach and eventually kills it.  The Eskimo will track the bear for days until it drops.  I'm sure they would rather have something in their arsenal that would be more effective.

While your analogy about shooting flatter would apply to the .308, the 270 is one of the flattest shooting non-magnum cartridges there is.

 

The 308 has the bullet mass, but lacks in flat shooting capabilities as you asserted. The 270 shoots flat, but lacks bullet mass in the lighter, flattest shooting offering.

 

The 308 would make a perfectly fine albeit a bit marginal elk cartridge W/150 or 180gr bullets if the ranges weren't stretched too far. Still capable of 250yds or a bit more.

 

The 270 would be a good choice W/controlled expansion /bullets of 140gr or more. The 150gr 270 bullet would have more retained energy & sectional density than the 150gr 308 bullet & would have a greater lethal range.

Edited February 28, 2015 by wildcat junkie

[Borngeechee]

Thanks guys

[the blur]

Go on you tube.  .243 kills Elk just fine.  

[NFA-ADK]

Even arrows have limits.  The weight and speed of your arrow results in what you are capable of shooting.  Kinetic Energy.

My 65lb bow with the arrows I am using put me at the limit with elk and black bear but buffalo and brown bear would be out.

 

In other words not everyone can shoot elk with a bow because you need enough energy to penetrate.  Guns use penetration and shock so higher calibers result in deeper larger and more shocking impacts.  Smaller calibers don't work well for people with poor aim. 

 

KE chart for arrows

 

http://www.bowsite.com/bowsite/features/practical_bowhunter/penetration/index.cfm

 

[G-Man]

Thus same topic has been hashed over for bear as well, if your going on a guided hunt, use what the guide recommends.bigger bullets and weight increase your chances for recovery from a less than perfect shot.

which no one ever makes a less than a perfect shot every time. Right?

[wildcat junkie]

Go on you tube.  .243 kills Elk just fine.  

And a 22lr  will kill deer just fine.

 

Neither is a wise choice. I think .243 for elk is illegal in @ least some states.

[Pygmy]

 

And a 22lr  will kill deer just fine.

 

Neither is a wise choice. I think .243 for elk is illegal in @ least some states.

I'd have to search around a bit Dan, but I don't think I ever recall the .24 cal being illegal, although it is minimum in some states.

You're probably right, though...Some states have, I believe, a minimum energy requirement.

[wildcat junkie]

Even arrows have limits.  The weight and speed of your arrow results in what you are capable of shooting.  Kinetic Energy.

My 65lb bow with the arrows I am using put me at the limit with elk and black bear but buffalo and brown bear would be out.

 

In other words not everyone can shoot elk with a bow because you need enough energy to penetrate.  Guns use penetration and shock so higher calibers result in deeper larger and more shocking impacts.  Smaller calibers don't work well for people with poor aim. 

 

KE chart for arrows

 

http://www.bowsite.com/bowsite/features/practical_bowhunter/penetration/index.cfm

Kinetic energy is not a good formula for calculating arrow lethality as it uses the square of the velocity.

 

A 65# longbow shooting a 700gr arrow W/cut on contact broadheads would have ample penetration for large bears.

 

Fred Bear used a 60# recurve to take his African lion.

Edited March 7, 2015 by wildcat junkie

[wildcat junkie]

 

I'd have to search around a bit Dan, but I don't think I ever recall the .24 cal being illegal, although it is minimum in some states.

You're probably right, though...Some states have, I believe, a minimum energy requirement.

I did some checking & .24 is the minimum in all the states I checked so you are correct. I saw a video of an antelope poaching sting operation & I thought there was mention of people illegally using a .243 for elk.

[Pygmy]

I just looked in my Colorado syllabus, and they have a .24 cal minimum PLUS a 1000 ft/lb requirement..

That would rule out some of the older rifle rounds such as the 25-20, 32-20 and 38-40 plus a lot of pistol rounds.

[wildcat junkie]

I just looked in my Colorado syllabus, and they have a .24 cal minimum PLUS a 1000 ft/lb requirement..

That would rule out some of the older rifle rounds such as the 25-20, 32-20 and 38-40 plus a lot of pistol rounds.

I think it's 1000ft# at 100 yds isn't it? I saw one state that had 900ft# @ 100yds as minimum.

Edited March 7, 2015 by wildcat junkie

[NFA-ADK]

Kinetic energy is not a good formula for calculating arrow lethality as it uses the square of the velocity.

 

A 65# longbow shooting a 700gr arrow W/cut on contact broadheads would have ample penetration for large bears.

 

Fred Bear used a 60# recurve to take his African lion.

If they are traveling at 200 fps that would put the KE around 62 that would be enough for large game.  But that would be considered low powered for larger game.  About the same as my bow.  Seems a pretty good way to judge effectiveness.  Again not everyone on the planet can shoot a 60-65 lbs plus bow.  Plus as we all know if you hit the heart even with a 30lbs pound bow you will kill a deer but that does not mean it will be very effective IF you hit a rib.  That extra KE will help get past these tough spots. 

 

It is a chart used by many but is not very accurate as the speed of your arrows slow down after leaving the bow.  EX: Less KE the further out you go.  But I would say it is a pretty good way of judging effectiveness.  JMO

[wildcat junkie]

If they are traveling at 200 fps that would put the KE around 62 that would be enough for large game.  But that would be considered low powered for larger game.  About the same as my bow.  Seems a pretty good way to judge effectiveness.  Again not everyone on the planet can shoot a 60-65 lbs plus bow.  Plus as we all know if you hit the heart even with a 30lbs pound bow you will kill a deer but that does not mean it will be very effective IF you hit a rib.  That extra KE will help get past these tough spots. 

 

It is a chart used by many but is not very accurate as the speed of your arrows slow down after leaving the bow.  EX: Less KE the further out you go.  But I would say it is a pretty good way of judging effectiveness.  JMO

 

 

Well that kind of proves the point. Even though kinetic energy might be about equal, penetration of the heavy/slow arrow will be greater all other things being equal.

 

You also mention energy loss as range increases. the Heavy arrow will not slow down as quickly as the lighter albeit faster/light arrow. Kind of like the difference between a 150gr bullet out of a 30-06 & a 180gr bullet.

 

The information I have been able to find indicates that Fred Bear used a 70# recurve to take his elephant. I doubt that a 70# compound shooting light arrows would be able to do that & arrow speed is affected by weight a lot more W/a compound than a recurve. 

 

I once ran arrows over a chronograph out of my 60# recurve, I shot 145gr screw in points & then 100gr points.There was only 2 fps difference. Arrow speed was in the 200 fps range.

 

Long bows are even less affected by heavy arrow weight.

 

Kinetic energy works as a judgement of effectiveness only when there isn't a large variance in arrow weight.

 

To simplify the mathematical results, lets compare a 350gr arrow @ 400 fps, it will have a lot more kinetic energy than the 700gr arrow @ 200 fps.

 

The lighter arrow will have 2 X the kinetic energy but momentum will,be the same as the heavier/slower arrow.

 

This is @ the bow. As the range increases, the velocity will drop faster for the lighter arrow thus even though it will still have a kinetic energy advantage @ 20 yds, the heavy arrow should have a momentum advantage.

 

The English defeated the French @ Agincourt because the English longbow could lob heavy arrows over long distance like artillery while the French crossbows were ineffective at those ranges.

Edited March 7, 2015 by wildcat junkie

[the blur]

_{Remington has .243 ammo, with a picture on an Elk on the box.   A new fangled plastic tip or something.} 

[dbHunterNY]

it's all relative to the effective range of what it is with the projectile used; bow or gun.  I think when you get to a point where the weapon has less KE then it's more critical of the projectile.  More projectiles may have been used or in theory and practice won't work as well for that weapon with limited KE and range.  so it's more of a hand waving and generalized statement commonly made about certain weapons for certain game despite they'll still work.  for example hunting cape buffalo with a recurve or elk with a .243 win.

 

bows aren't much different than guns in that you still need penetration.  most people use KE in the wrong context.  Contrary to physics, when it comes to KE you should think of it actually as potential energy used for penetration, instead of energy in motion.  then depending on the projectile, arrow or bullet, you'll have more or less energy lead to penetration versus damage due to shock or damage due to cutting.

 

...that's my take anyway.

 

Edited March 13, 2015 by dbHunterNY