There are two schools of thought on increasing the efficacy of

>>33178425
according to David Pedzel, the IQ of the rifleman is inversely proportional to the caliber he uses when hunting.

I don't know what is better, but I like big and slow for handguns.

>>33178504
Big and slow is predicated upon handguns by the limitations of their barrel length and frame strength. You just can't get handgun bullets above about 2000 fps without using freakishly long barrels or light for caliber bullets.

E=m*v^2

Velocity is squared, and therefore exponentially more important than the mass of a projectile for maximum transferrable energy.

>>33178452
Spotted the redneck yokel who only ever hunts durr and duhk

Try taking down an elk or moose or caribou with .223. Then you can lecture me about using shit like .45-70 or .30-06 for hunting

>>33178551
You're assuming kinetic energy is a valid measure of bullet efficacy. There is a theory that momentum is better.

>>33178580
Well, there are some people who say 6mm/243 is fine for elk. I've never hunted elk, so I don't have a right to an opinion.

>>33178585

It is.

How well the bullet (via shape/composition, etc) can transfer that energy into a target is the only other factor.

>>33178425

For most practical purposes, small and fast. You usually end up with a very high velocity cartridge that's comparatively low in recoil and flat shooting, with the added benefit of easier penetration in some cases because of the smaller surface area.

>>33178638
Says who? You do realize that kinetic energy is only one of many attempts to quantify bullet efficacy. Why should I believe you over the people who insist that momentum is better when neither party seems to have any compelling evidence.

>>33178688

Says basic physics, like the equation in my first post.

>>33178711
No, physics doesn't say anything about "stopping power." Physics uses kinetic energy because it tells us how much force and distance are needed to stop a moving object. Physics also uses momentum because it tells us how much force and time is needed. One is called work. The other is called impulse.

>>33178580
David Pedzal writes for field and stream and has hunted almost every animal on earth that is legal to hunt, you fucking useless waste of a moron.

>>33178611
David Pedzal writes for Field and Stream. I believe he probably knows a thing or two about hunting with the rifle, unlike the insecure, low IQ mong sitting up this thread.

>>33178816
>>33178843
>>33178881
The problem with arguments from authority is that you can find an "authority" for almost any argument. For example, David Petzal and Wayne Van Zwoll say any caliber will work. Bryce Towsley says bigger is better. Roy Weatherby said faster was better, and he even killed an African buffalo with a 25 caliber rifle just to prove it. Is there any cogent evidence for why one is true and the others are bullshit?

>>33179022
protip: all centerfire rifles kill things ded.

how much recoil are you willing to put up with to kill an identical animal the same amount?

>>33179110
So I can hunt Kodiak bear with a 243? Not trying to be sarcastic. I mean it as a legitimate question.

>>33179176
Yes.

>>33179176
yes.

>>33178759

This distinction has clearly solved your query.


Well done!

>>33178551
>KE = 1/2mv^2

if you're going to be autistic, at least be right about it

>>33178585
A bullet has the same momentum as a baseball, it's definitely the kinetic energy that matters. So to answer OP's question it's the velocity that matters more because doubling that gives a 4x increase in kinetic energy as opposed to doubling the mass which just doubles the kinetic energy
>>33178638
And this

>>33182447
A bullet also roughly the same measure of kinetic energy as an NFL linebacker tackling you.

Linebacker = 1/2 * 100kg * 5m/s ^ 2 = 1250j
.223 = 1/2 * .004kg * 750m/s ^ 2 = 1125j

Which is why every game of football has a casualty rate of 100 players per game.

Or maybe things like surface area of wound channel, bullet cross section, and also bullet construction matter and it's not just simple enough to go more joules = better bullet. It's not a bad starting point, but it's more complicated than that.

>>33178611
>I don't have a right to an opinion.

Yes you do. Everybody has the right to an opinion. It's a part of free speech.

>>33179176
Can? Yes. Should? Probably not.

>>33182447
>>33182859

I'd argue that penetration, diameter and velocity matter, if the round achieves shit penetration the lethality is poor, high velocity causes larger temporary disruption and hydrostatic shock if you happen to believe in it, and finally diameter causes a permanent disruption, small caliber needleguns never took off due to shit lethality afterall.

>>33182859
>Or maybe things like surface area of wound channel, bullet cross section, and also bullet construction matter and it's not just simple enough to go more joules = better bullet. It's not a bad starting point, but it's more complicated than that.

Different anon here. It looks like the primary factors in play here are amount of available energy, and the rate at which that energy is imparted to the target. Is that what they're trying to model when they use ballistic gel?

File: cceedbbe-26c1-4e31-9140-91e23ae0fd16.gif (1MB, 264x264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 264x264px

>>33178452
Can confirm.
>mfw old guys come into my store looking for shit like 300 ultra mag for their deer rifles
Why does this way of thinking exist?

>>33179176
If it's a legitimate question, I suggest you hear with guides in the area - Whether you want to hire a guide or hunt on your own, they're pretty sure to be fairly knowledgeable about the stuff.
When I went to Svalbard where they want you carrying outside the settlements, they said anything 30-calibre and upwards would work against polar bears, which are somewhat the same size.
Now, you probably know this already, but if you're hunting dangerous game (Don't rightly know how dangerous kodiak is, so bear(lol) with me), you might want to be ready for more follow-up shots in case you miss with the first shot and have an angry gut-shot bear to deal with.

>>33184656

KE is a simple measure of how hard your cartridge had to work to get the bullet moving, and minus drag, how hard your target has to work to stop it.

Once you start talking about incapacitating any mammal, you're dealing with two things. Either breaking the CNS, or bleed out. Logically, the wider the surface area of your wound channel, the faster blood leaks out. Having a hole at either end speeds this up as well.

KE is simply not complex enough to determine wound channel depth and cross section, especially with things like spitzer vs OTM vs FMJ, lead vs bonded vs copper, bone impact, yaw, bullet expansion, etc. Terminal ballistics goes to shit super fast if you're trying to just model it. It's bad enough that there's a forensics text on the subject that is 400 pages long for identifying bullet type from wounds.

Hence I think the FBI said fuck it and just started using ballistics gelatin and testing every god damn bullet they considered using. It's worth noting they require 12" penetration before looking at any other considerations.