I keep reading that 1000 (ft lbs) is enough for whitetails? That would make 243`s 400 yrd guns (1023)--25-06 500 yrd (1098)--270 win. 500 yrds overkill (1201)--308 500 yrds(1146) Most people dont even shoot half that far making all these cal`s overkill. What do yaall think?
1000 ft lbs ? enough
- Thread starter D*N*R*
- Start date
- Status
MachIVshooter
Member
There's a lot more to the equation than kinetic energy. DOW sets that minimum requirement to ensure that people aren't using 9mm carbines for big game. Here in CO, it's .24 cal. and 1,000 ft/lbs @ 100 yards minimum.
Is the .25-06 a 500 yard big game cartridge? You bet. I'll confidently shoot mine out to 600 for deer and elk with my heavy handloads (117 gr. @ 3,220 FPS). But bullet selection and shot placement are also critical, as is accuracy. I have a .375 Ultra Mag that makes more than twice the energy of my .25-06, and those 300 grain spitzers will destroy a big bull's shoulder even at extreme range. But I wouldn't take a 600 yard shot with it, because I don't shoot it nearly as well.
Similarly, while my .17 Remington (rifle) and my 10mm handloads (from a pistol) both make about 800 ft/lbs, I certainly wouldn't use the .17 on a deer, while I'd gladly take a shot with the 10mm out to 60 or 70 yards. That .17 gets it's energy from the extreme velocity (4,300 + FPS), but that 20 grain bullet is not suitable for anything larger than about 30 pounds. The 10mm, on the other hand, is only generating 1/3 the velocity at 1,400 FPS, but that 180 grain bullet will get the penetration.
Is the .25-06 a 500 yard big game cartridge? You bet. I'll confidently shoot mine out to 600 for deer and elk with my heavy handloads (117 gr. @ 3,220 FPS). But bullet selection and shot placement are also critical, as is accuracy. I have a .375 Ultra Mag that makes more than twice the energy of my .25-06, and those 300 grain spitzers will destroy a big bull's shoulder even at extreme range. But I wouldn't take a 600 yard shot with it, because I don't shoot it nearly as well.
Similarly, while my .17 Remington (rifle) and my 10mm handloads (from a pistol) both make about 800 ft/lbs, I certainly wouldn't use the .17 on a deer, while I'd gladly take a shot with the 10mm out to 60 or 70 yards. That .17 gets it's energy from the extreme velocity (4,300 + FPS), but that 20 grain bullet is not suitable for anything larger than about 30 pounds. The 10mm, on the other hand, is only generating 1/3 the velocity at 1,400 FPS, but that 180 grain bullet will get the penetration.
longdayjake
Member
RANT ON: This news just in. If people only asked new questions that had never been asked before, this forum would be called an archive and not a forum. EVERY question that could be asked has been asked and answered several times. Its a discussion forum. Not a library. If you don't want to answer the question then don't read the OP. You don't have to post something in every thread. Some people like being helpful. Let them answer the question and you can just move right along to something that interests you more. 
:banghead: 
END RANT
White tail are not hard to kill in the slightest. ftlbs have plenty to do with terminal effects, but bullet construction and shot placement have as much or more to do with it than ft lbs.
:banghead: END RANTWhite tail are not hard to kill in the slightest. ftlbs have plenty to do with terminal effects, but bullet construction and shot placement have as much or more to do with it than ft lbs.
Energy is inconsequential if you can't hit where you want. Once you do, there are MANY variables at play and the ft.lb figure is thown around as insurance for tissue, bone, etc. The part that is difficult to know is how much energy is deposited into the animal and how much that matters. Any bullet that exits carries unspent energy with and has done all that it can do, but also extends a double ended wound channel. All in all, don't overthink it and enjoy the hunt!
jiminhobesound
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 261
1000 ft/lbs
Do not forget that when you are shooting at 300+ yards in the western flat lands you are not in a vacumm. The small caliber bullets can be loaded to high speed but they are also susceptible to wind. If I was shooting at those distances, which i have with a .257 on the western plains, I would rather step up to at least a .284/280/7mm because they would be more stable at extreme ranges. Trying to hit a running deer or antelope at 500 or 600 yards is at least difficult. Even a standing target, with a good scope, is a really tough target.
Do not forget that when you are shooting at 300+ yards in the western flat lands you are not in a vacumm. The small caliber bullets can be loaded to high speed but they are also susceptible to wind. If I was shooting at those distances, which i have with a .257 on the western plains, I would rather step up to at least a .284/280/7mm because they would be more stable at extreme ranges. Trying to hit a running deer or antelope at 500 or 600 yards is at least difficult. Even a standing target, with a good scope, is a really tough target.
To answer your question, those numbers are a good rule of thumb. Add about 500 ft lbs for elk and larger game.
The numbers by themselves should only be considered a rough guide. There are many other factors involved.
And yes, most American hunters are way overgunned. Most guys seem to think a 30-06 is borderline for a 100 lb whitetail. In Europe they regularly shoot moose with 6.5X55's
The numbers by themselves should only be considered a rough guide. There are many other factors involved.
And yes, most American hunters are way overgunned. Most guys seem to think a 30-06 is borderline for a 100 lb whitetail. In Europe they regularly shoot moose with 6.5X55's
MachIVshooter
Member
That's a bit exaggerated and over simplified. Also, the 6.5 caliber, due to the common use of bullets with exceptionally high sectional densities, has killing ability that is disproportionate to the energy figures and recoil. Only in more recent years have we seen the market offer bullets of that type in a wide range of diameters.
A whole bunch of deer were killed with 44-40's, 38-40's, 32-20's, etc, none of which ever produce 1000 fp. If you look at the ballistics on the old Pennsylvania/Kentucky rifles of Daniel Boone's day you wonder how they ever killed anything bigger than a squirrel. Most of them hit about like a .38 special revolver.
Frozen North
Member
I would agree that most deer hunters are packing a bit more heat than is really needed. Most hunters want to go as big as they can go for reliable kills, but not so huge that they destroy too much meat.
The figures that the OP posted seem completely within the realm of common sense to me. These figures would illustrate the maximum effective range of the rifle and they seem spot on. The max effective range of the hunter would be drastically less unless he is an extremely skilled and experienced marksman though.
Deer are not tough animals if you hit them right! They will run till their last drop of blood is gone if you can't place a shot well. The key is to hit them right.
The figures that the OP posted seem completely within the realm of common sense to me. These figures would illustrate the maximum effective range of the rifle and they seem spot on. The max effective range of the hunter would be drastically less unless he is an extremely skilled and experienced marksman though.
Deer are not tough animals if you hit them right! They will run till their last drop of blood is gone if you can't place a shot well. The key is to hit them right.
Maverick223
Member
Bullet construction is paramount, particularly when an imperfect shot presents itself. This is where sectional density really helps. Most projectiles less than .25cal. (with 6.5mm being a significant step up) don't fare too well in such conditions.
Cob
Member
Let's post this same question to archery hunter?
A lot of modern compound bows will sling aluminum arrows in the 150 -200 fps range. I am shooting a 2008 model Renegade that flings aluminum arrows at a blinding 290 fps. With a bow I have hav shot 14 deer, 3 armadillos, a turkey, a hog, and several songbirds. The draw weight is set at 75 lbs...
Translating that speed and arrow weight into something usable, such as kinetic energy, allows us to compare our bow’s performance to some generally recommended standards.
The information below was taken from the website listed below...
Kinetic Energy Recommendations (for archery)
<25 ft lbs = Small Game (rabbits, squirrels, etc.)
25-41 ft lbs = Medium Game (deer, pronghorn, etc.)
42-65 ft lbs = Large Game (elk, bear, feral hog, etc.)
>65 ft lbs = Dangerous Game (cape buffalo, grizzly, etc.)
There is much more to the equation that just foot/lbs... weight and momentum of projectiles, shot placement, etc.
When you compare what archery hunters routinely use to take a deer, it changes the science behind the process...
I once killed a whitetail doe with a pocket knife, with a 4" blade...it was a mercy killing, and all i had at the time.
I think 1000 lbs is more than enough, with proper shot placement
A lot of modern compound bows will sling aluminum arrows in the 150 -200 fps range. I am shooting a 2008 model Renegade that flings aluminum arrows at a blinding 290 fps. With a bow I have hav shot 14 deer, 3 armadillos, a turkey, a hog, and several songbirds. The draw weight is set at 75 lbs...
Translating that speed and arrow weight into something usable, such as kinetic energy, allows us to compare our bow’s performance to some generally recommended standards.
The information below was taken from the website listed below...
Kinetic Energy Recommendations (for archery)
<25 ft lbs = Small Game (rabbits, squirrels, etc.)
25-41 ft lbs = Medium Game (deer, pronghorn, etc.)
42-65 ft lbs = Large Game (elk, bear, feral hog, etc.)
>65 ft lbs = Dangerous Game (cape buffalo, grizzly, etc.)
(click here for more information on a technical article, some of which i posted above)
There is much more to the equation that just foot/lbs... weight and momentum of projectiles, shot placement, etc.
When you compare what archery hunters routinely use to take a deer, it changes the science behind the process...
I once killed a whitetail doe with a pocket knife, with a 4" blade...it was a mercy killing, and all i had at the time.
I think 1000 lbs is more than enough, with proper shot placement
Last edited:
Maverick223
Member
Archery works on completely different principles than firearms, and therefore evidence gathered from bow hunting cannot be effectively utilized for comparison to firearms. If that weren't the case we'd all be hunting deer with a .22CB.
Cob
Member
I understand completely... & routinely hunt with all types of weapons.
35 Whelen
Member
Energy doesn't kill deer. Destruction of vital does. So, as I always say, a hole through both lungs will kill anything that walks the earth.
Armed with that info, equip yourself accordingly. In other words, use a rifle chambered for a cartridge loaded with an expanding bullet with good penetrative qualities, and forget energy. As Idhulk already mentioned, many generations fed themselves using cartridges that didn't produse 1000 ft. lbs. of energy anywhere.
And archery does work on the same principle as firearms; destroy vital organs.
35W
Armed with that info, equip yourself accordingly. In other words, use a rifle chambered for a cartridge loaded with an expanding bullet with good penetrative qualities, and forget energy. As Idhulk already mentioned, many generations fed themselves using cartridges that didn't produse 1000 ft. lbs. of energy anywhere.
And archery does work on the same principle as firearms; destroy vital organs.
35W
blarby
Member
I also concur that a majority of hunters in north america are significantly over gunned ( as well as over scoped, for the most part). 1000 fps with a 150 grain projectile is more than adequate for anything four legged you could encounter.
As has been noted above, deer (or BG's, for that matter) do not simply respond to bullets with "oh lawdy, 2400 fps ! ......flop/fold". Bullets cause death either by immediate and direct CNS disablement, or conjunctive organ failure ultimately leading to CNS failure. Severing a vital artery happens equally well at 800 fps as it does at 1000+fps.
Where that projectile finds its mark is far more important than how fast its going, and how large or heavy the bullet is.
As has been noted above, deer (or BG's, for that matter) do not simply respond to bullets with "oh lawdy, 2400 fps ! ......flop/fold". Bullets cause death either by immediate and direct CNS disablement, or conjunctive organ failure ultimately leading to CNS failure. Severing a vital artery happens equally well at 800 fps as it does at 1000+fps.
Where that projectile finds its mark is far more important than how fast its going, and how large or heavy the bullet is.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Think of the rule as a guideline. Wildlife agencies have come up with this number in order to keep unknowing hunters from using "pipsqueak" cartridges. They don't want crippled game animals.
Doing a bunch of calculating about what a .243 will do at 400 yards is over-thinking the issue, seems to me.
The death occurs as a result of tissue damage and bleed-out. Using a cartridge which is "more than enough" or "overkill" doesn't hurt a thing. Think of it as a bit of additional insurance, maybe.
IMO, the dislike of an "overkill" cartridge that supposedly "ruins too much meat" happens only for those who shoot into the eating part of a deer.
Doing a bunch of calculating about what a .243 will do at 400 yards is over-thinking the issue, seems to me.
The death occurs as a result of tissue damage and bleed-out. Using a cartridge which is "more than enough" or "overkill" doesn't hurt a thing. Think of it as a bit of additional insurance, maybe.
IMO, the dislike of an "overkill" cartridge that supposedly "ruins too much meat" happens only for those who shoot into the eating part of a deer.
scythefwd
Member
COB - are you sure you're only getting 190-200 fps out of a bow made in 2k8? My bow is rated for 300 fps and was made in 2k5. Granted, I'm using lighter weight carbon arrows, but I don't think it would make THAT much of a difference from weight.
Cob
Member
meant to post 290 fps... missed it by 100... thought i went back and fixed that. and that was just what i found online, it shoots fast, it's the same type of bow that Ted Nugent shoots, i got an excellent deal on it, New but on sale... I used to shoot a PSE mach 4, was satisfied with it, but the difference between the two is frightening.(i thought the PSE mach 4 was fast, til i shot the renegade, and yes i upgraded from AL to Carbon)
Kachok
Member
It has much more to do with bullet construction then KE, especaly in the smaller calibers. For example a 243 with 100gr Nosler partition is a MUCH better big game hunting bullets then the 100gr core lock in the same weight. High speed 6mms tend to halfway come unglued while the partition penatrates 19+ inches at darn near any impact speed. High SD bullets also have alot to do with consistant penatration which is absolutly key to quick clean kills. My 6.5x55 with high SD 140gr has quickly and cleanly killed everything it has ever struck despite having fewer ft-lbs then other popular calibers.
ironhead7544
Member
In GA, 22 cal centerfire and above for big game.
Kachok
Member
For deer sized game a 1/2" permanate wound canal through the lungs is considerd a quickly fatal. I favor a little overkill myself. A 150gr 270win or 140gr 6.5x55 with soft points normaly make a 3/4"-1" wound at the exit, which is has been very quickly fatal in my experence. Now you would think that you would have to have 2000 ft lbs+ like the two calibers I listed, but you will find a .44 magnum can also create a similar wound profile (with HPs or SPs) despite it's much lower energy number. I have never seen a deer shot with the "puney" 44 mag in the boiler room run far.
Energy can be misleading, because a smaller bullet at higher speed can have higher energy numbers but carry much less momentum. Compare the .223 to the .44 Magnum. The 223 usualy has higher energy, but in terms of killing power there is no contest the .44 wins without an argument even from the most hardcore .223 fans.
In genral you could say that 1000ft lbs is enough as long as you are still within your bullet expansion fps range (usualy 1800fps+)
Energy can be misleading, because a smaller bullet at higher speed can have higher energy numbers but carry much less momentum. Compare the .223 to the .44 Magnum. The 223 usualy has higher energy, but in terms of killing power there is no contest the .44 wins without an argument even from the most hardcore .223 fans.
In genral you could say that 1000ft lbs is enough as long as you are still within your bullet expansion fps range (usualy 1800fps+)
calaverasslim
Member
I find that with my eyes, that my 35 Rem works fine out to 125 yards, which is my max range. Where I hunt here in South TX., thats a long shot.
However, I do have 30-30's, 7mm-08, 30-06, 270 & a 308. I shoot these for pleasure.
However, I do have 30-30's, 7mm-08, 30-06, 270 & a 308. I shoot these for pleasure.
45crittergitter
Member
Last time I checked, deer can't do physics.
- Status
