# another .243 thread ( yes it's a deer gun)



## .243 whackmaster

Been reading a few .243 threads and like to say a few things.
first and foremost energy does not kill. The amount of energy disspersed on a game is the same amount of energy disspersed to your shoulder.
guns do not have 2000 ft/lbs energy, sorry thats a mathmatical equasion, a theory. 
Law of physics tells us that with every reaction there is an opposite and equall reaction. thus the amount of energy is about equall to the force on your shoulder from the kick, nothing more. No such thing as knock down power, again same thing, simple physics tell us that.
what kills are wound channels. arrow, knife or bullet, they all kill by cutting arteries, bullet crush arteries while arrows and knifes cut.
the size of the wound channell determines how fast one dies. bigger wound = faster death. nothing more. 
In guns bullets that mushroom create bigger wounds. bigger mushroom bigger wound. Bullets are designed to mushroom at different velocites. Guns that lose velocity quick are usually deemed "not long range calibers", guns that retain velocity at long range are deemed "good long range calibers". This has nothing to do with energy, energy is a mathmatical theory and has no bearing on how well a gun kills. NONE whatsoever ! 
Now the fun part. for those of you who say a .243 doesnt leave big wounds or is not suitable for deer I give you this pic.
my son pictured here took this deer at 205 yds, with a .243.
now how much more of a hole do you want, this is not uncommon for deer we shoot with a .243. I got more pics of deer with holes this size. first pic is in the field, second is after being skinned.
maybe some of you have seen this already on another board. this was this year. Theres also a hole in his neck, this critter wasnt dead when we got up to him even though he was hit directly in the spine.


----------



## Ranger_Compact

I shot my buck last year with a .243 at 15-20 yards and it barely left a mark, but I suck at math, so I'll leave all of that business to you. A .243 still must pack a punch, because my buck just ran about 100 yards before dropping dead. My dad also shot it with a .223 just to make sure it dropped, and that didn't really leave a mark at all either. I think it might have to do with where the deer is hit too? I don't know. I haven't been deer hunting very long, but I don't think I'll ever give up on shooting a .243. It's the only thing I've used deer hunting, I've been given other options, but I just like the .243.


----------



## .243 whackmaster

What bullets are you using ?


----------



## Ranger_Compact

I don't know they might be 100 grain, but I'm not positive.


----------



## johnsona

> The amount of energy disspersed on a game is the same amount of energy disspersed to your shoulder.


I disagree with that. When people talk about energy in a rifle, they're not talking about the rifle itself of course, they're talking about the energy that the cartridge produces, NOT the energy that is produced by the recoil of the gun. So, the amount of energy dispersed on game is not the same as the energy dispersed on your shoulder, but the same as the energy dispersed if that bullet hit you in the shoulder.



> energy is a mathmatical theory


Theories have not been proven. The concept of energy has been, therefore it isn't a theory. Now I can't think of it offhand, but there is a mathematical equation for energy, which I'm quite sure involves both velocity and weight of the projectile. With velocity being a factor, if your bullet is not moving, it has no energy (since anything multiplied or divided by 0 is 0). So obviously you need energy if you're going to kill an animal, because bullets standing still just don't do the trick. Since velocity in a bullet decreases the farther it goes, it has less energy at longer ranges, which means that if you get out too far, the bullet will not have enough energy expand like it was meant to, and you may end up with a wounded animal. Now I'm not sure what the effective range of the .243 is on deer-sized game, but I'm guessing that it's around 350 yards with a well placed shot.

There are many variables in the effectiveness of a cartridge, a few of which include bullet weight, velocity, as well as expansion and fragmentation of the bullet. If the bullet is well-designed and performs correctly, then it should give up most or all of it's energy within the animal, and if it does so on a well-placed shot, the animal will not go far.

Sure, the .243 is a deer cartridge, and with the right bullet/powder charge combination, along with a well placed shot, it can be a very deadly one. But, I do have one question. If you know that the .243 is perfectly capable of taking an deer-sized animal, why would you use a bullet that destroyed that much meat instead of opting for one that would do the job without blowing it up that bad?


----------



## .243 whackmaster

sorry, But I know what rifle bullet energy is, and yes it's a theory.
Say a rifles balisitcs say it has 2000 ft/lbs of energy.
That is the required force to move 2000 lbs 1 ft. which would translate 2000 lbs of force in the opposite direction. bullets do not strike with 2000lbs of force, sorry. bullet energy theories are a falacy.
The actuall force a bullet strikes a target is directly proportionate to the force that is exerted in the rifle in the opposite way. bullets do not strike anywhere near 50lbs much less 2000 lbs. the law of physics state with every action there is an opposite and equall reaction. 
If you hung a 30 lb flat piece of iron from a string and shot it with a 30-06 it will barely move the piece of iron. get my point. bullets strike somewher aroun 10- 20 ft/lbs. A hand thrown baseball strikes with more energy than a bullet, and thats a fact.
people really need to learn this stuff. Balistic energy is misleading.
There are two formulas for energy, one was the newton theory and the other is the einstien theory.


----------



## Burly1

Okay.....so if there is no energy transferred to the game animal, then what causes the bullet to expand thereby crushing arteries and breaking bones? A bullet won't expand by itself, while flying through the air, will it? The bullet's energy, which is generated by it's weight and speed, is transferred not only to the target, but to the bullet itself, causing expansion and therefore destroying tissue and bone. If the bullet is of fairly stout construction (partition or solid) it may exit the target, having retained a portion of the energy that was imparted to the bullet as the powder ignited and caused it to leave the barrel. If the bullet is of lighter construction (spitzer, ballistic tip) It may penetrate only to the far shoulder, having given up all of it's energy inside the animal. In any case, bullet energy is transferred to the animal. Ballistics is not a theory, it's an exact science, researched to new levels each and every day in the finest ballistics laboratories in the world. What happens when we shoot an animal is subject to a great many variables. Bullet speed, bullet weight, humidity, temperature, the size and density of the animal and most certainly where it is hit. That is the theory part and why ammunition companies are constantly striving to come up with a bullet design that's going to perform perfectly, on every animal, every time. Foot-pounds of bullet energy is simply a benchmark to work from, telling us what we might expect if everything is "average". Your metal plate theory is exactly how those numbers are found. When the bullet gives up all of it's energy against a steel plate, the plate will move, the increments of whatever unit of measure they use are then plugged into a formula to determine how much energy the bullet retained at whatever the distance may have been. Don't take me wrong here, I think that with a properly constructed bullet a .243 is a darn fine medium game cartridge. I have shot a bunch of deer with my own 6mm, which is it's ballistic twin, and will probably do so a few more times. I don't disagree with your conclusion, just the route you're taking to get there. Good shooting, Burl


----------



## johnsona

.243 whackmaster said:


> The actuall force a bullet strikes a target is directly proportionate to the force that is exerted in the rifle in the opposite way. bullets do not strike anywhere near 50lbs much less 2000 lbs.


Okay, so if the bullet hit's the animal with the same force the rifle hit's my shoulder, that's enough to push it through the skin, bones, and internal organs of the creature? Probably not. So what gives it that ability? You might say velocity. But if that bullet has velocity, as well as mass, by both Einstein and Newton's equations, does it not also have energy?

As far as the 2000 ft/lbs of energy goes, yes, Newton's first law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So say that the rifle does create 2000 ft/lbs. But you only feel a few ft/lbs of recoil. So the energy has to go somewhere right? Of course, it goes to the bullet. When the cartridge fires, it creates a certain amount of energy, measured in ft/lbs. Most of that energy that was created is transferred to the bullet. So, the action is that the energy was created by the burning of the powder within the cartridge, and the reaction is that the same energy was transferred to the bullet, which was pushed out the barrel by the force created. And felt recoil is what is left over, i.e. what was not transferred to the bullet. Maybe 5 ft/lbs after it is all said and done. Remember that the gun also absorbs some, which is why a heavier gun doesn't recoil as bad. And when that bullet stops, the energy it was carrying has to be transferred somewhere right? Right. So it goes into the animal. Sure, not 2000 ft/lbs of initial force, because it has slowed quite a bit since it left the barrel, but still quite a bit. Also, the energy is transferred from the time it enters to the time it stops or exits, not all at once, so over about a foot on a deer. What else but a very sizable and quick transfer of energy could lift an animal off of it's feet and drop it on it's side when the bullet hits it as so many of us have either seen on tv, heard about, or seen personally.



> people really need to learn this stuff. Balistic energy is misleading.


Why do all these companies publish this "energy" stuff in all of their reloading books then? If you're right, maybe you should be writing them.


----------



## Draker16

I've used a 243 for 7 years now and every deer i've shot dropped right on the spot, and it never leaves much of a entry or exit wound most of the time i cant even figure out where i hit it until i skin the deer. I like the 243 its done a great job for me and im confident in its ability to drop the big bucks.


----------



## .17remman

.243Whackmaster,

You are forgetting the mass of the rifle vs. the mass of the bullet. If the rifle had a mass of 30 grams and the bullet also a mass of 30 grams, there would be an equal but opposite reaction. But, a rifle's mass is more than 1000 times greater than that of the bullet that is shot from it.

Couple this with the loss of energy from the heat transfer through the barrel (Energy also taken here, from the stress and torque applied by making the bullet spin), and you have no where near the energy exerted on the human as is exerted on the animal.

The kinetic energy exerted on the animal is formulated by the physics equation E = 1/2 m (v*v) ; where v is velocity and m is mass. Yes, you lose energy downrange due to the effects of air resistance, gravity, and air temperature and barometric pressure, but there is as much kinetic energy as the books say being absorbed by the target.

True, not all of the kinetic energy is absorbed by the target. Heat created by the bullet passing through tissue, liquid, and bone. The animal's mass and weight also contribute to how the kinetic energy is transferred. If the bullet passes through, then not all of the energy is transferred, and you have an inelastic collision. If the bullet remains in the animal, the collision is perfectly inelastic, and all of the energy is transferred.

You stated that the wound channel and the amound of blood lost is what kills an animal. Yes and No. I witnessed an Elk being shot in the eye guard of his right antler. It killed the animal immediately. Upon further examination of the animal, the neck was broken. This could only have happened in the realm of physics where an amount of kinetic energy transferred was large enough to break the animal's neck.

When you shoot your rifle, does it break your shoulder? In most rifles, 35 ft/lbs of felt recoil is average. If the elk would have only had 35 ft/lbs of energy transferred, it would have been nothing more than a slap in the face.

Was this an ethical kill on an elk? No. And I would certainly not recommend ever shooting an animal in the horn. But it proves that the kinetic energy of the bullet is greater than what you feel behind your weapon.

Happy hunting.


----------



## Fallguy

Yes .17 has it right.

Equal and opposite work when objects have equal mass. Change the masses or use objects of different mass and it's a different story.

Also momentum is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by it's velocity or speed.

A bullet has high momentum even though it is small because of it's high speed. A parked tractor has NO momentum because it's speed is ZERO.

The higher the momentum, the harder an object is to stop. That is why you can catch a baseball but not a bullet. Momentum must have some effect on this discussion too.


----------



## sierra03

whackermaster...
I think it was the shot placement. The bullet skimmed the outside of the body cavity, tearing as it came out the same side it came in. I have used a 243 all my life and yet to see it leave a hole like that. Thanks for confirming the 243 is a deer rifle, have a good day and happy holidays


----------



## Burly1

I love it when someone who really knows physics shows their stuff!
:wink: Burl


----------



## .243 whackmaster

Copied and pasted. more to follow, I hope you read it.

Part I: "Energy Dumping" Is A Myth

Let me state right here and now that there are two terms you're going to hear that have no meaning. If you haven't heard them yet, you will, if you spend any time at all on a shooting range or hanging around the wiseacres in gun shops. Both refer to popular myths among shooters about how a bullet kills, and are based on thorough misunderstanding of ballisitics and biology.

"Hydrostatic shock" is the idea that a bullet kills by setting up a "shock wave" in the incompressible water of which an animal's body is largely composed. "Energy dumping" is the concept that if a bullet stops within an animal, it will kill more effectively than one that goes through and exits, since it "releases its entire amount of energy within the body."

As intuitively appealing as these notions are, the fact is that a bullet kills the same way any other agent of penetrating trauma does. A bullet may act faster than a knife or an arrow, but like them it kills either: 1) by causing a rapid loss of blood pressure, depriving the central nervous system of oxygen; or 2) by physically interfering with nerve pathways; or 3) both.

The False Reasoning Behind The "Energy Dumping" Fallacy

The bullet does indeed have a good deal of kinetic energy, and the faster it's moving the more it has, of course. In the USA bullet energy levels are rated in "foot-pounds", a relatively obscure unit implying the amount of energy needed to move one pound of weight one foot.

European countries use the much more sensible metric system, and in this system the energy unit is the "joule". While both these units refer to energy of movement, the joule has the advantage that it can easily be converted to units used to measure heat. One calorie is equivalent to 4.1 joules, the calorie being a unit of heat. Specifically, one calorie is the amount of heat needed to raise one gram of water one degree Celsius. (The comparable unit in the US system is the BTU, but converting foot-pounds to BTU's is not so straightforward as converting joules to calories.)

A bullet fired from a reasonably powerful handgun, say a hot 9mm Parabellum load, has an energy level of perhaps 500 joules at the muzzle.

So why do I care about converting muzzle energy figures into heat? Because if a bullet is stopped in its target, that's exactly what happens: its residual kinetic energy is, in fact released (or, as the wiseacres have it, "dumped") into the animal's body; but it's released as heat, in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. (This is the reason why your car's brakes heat up when you stop: that energy can't be destroyed, it can only be converted to another form, and the "defaut" is to convert it to heat.)

The amount of heat liberated by stopping a bullet is surprisingly small: 500 joules works out to be about 106 calories. That would be enough to raise 106 grams (about 0.25 pounds) of water one degree Celsius (about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). That's not all that much, especially when compared to the size of animal it has to be "dumped" into.

A man is a pretty large animal (about the size of a deer) and 500 joules (or 106 calories) of energy diffused through the body of a 150-pound (68,100 gram) human would not suffice to raise his body temperature even one-one-hundreth of a degree Fahrenheit. And that is a maximum amount, which assumes the bullet is stopped and that the shot was fired at point-blank range. To have a noticeable effect on tissue temperature you would have to "dump" a great deal more energy than 500 or so joules: the amount of heat liberated even by the biggest and baddest bullet available is very far below the capacity of the body's water to absorb it. It should be obvious, then, that the theory of "energy dumping" is based on an exaggerated idea of how much energy a bullet actually has, and is meaningless as a part of the killing mechanism.

Believers in the "energy dumping" theory never seem to have an adequate explanation for the fact that there are many, many gunshot victims are still walking around with bullets that "dumped" all their energy, and are still inside the victims. Many people with such retained bullets received them at close range from large-caliber guns, and were therefore the unlucky recipients of lots of "dumped" energy, but they are still alive. The answer, however, is really very simple: they are still alive because they were lucky enough not to have received a hit in a vital area.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II: "Hydrostatic Shock" Is An Even Bigger Myth

Proponents of the "hydrostatic shock" theory usually argue that animals are composed largely of water, and therefore a bullet causes a "shock wave" to be set up in them, which causes displacement of organs, and rupture of tissues. Their belief in this concept is bolstered by the spectacular splashes that expanding bullets make when fired into plastic milk jugs filled with water: they imagine that something of the same thing happens in an animal body. They are wrong.

First, animals aren't jugs of water, and don't resemble jugs of water in the least. Animals don't have uniform internal density, and the response of muscle to a bullet is very different than that of, say, the bones or the lungs. At the microscopic level, animals are actually very compartmentalized, and there is almost no "free" water (or any other liquid) to constitute a homogeneous medium in which a "shock wave" can be propagated for more than few millimeters. About the only places where large quantities of fluids are found sloshing around are in the spleen and liver, both of which contain sizeable volumes of "loose" blood.

Second, it has been demonstrated quite conclusively that most body tissues are very tolerant of momentary deformation and quite resilient. Unless a bullet physically cuts a blood vessel or nerve, little more than localized damage is done by its passage.

It is true that in passing through, a bullet does form a so-called "temporary wound cavity" of considerable size, which lasts for milliseconds. Inside this volume a "shock wave" does form, and it even displaces some organs. But the effect of the temporary wound cavity is small, and most tissues and organs resist this very brief deformation. There is certainly no possibility--as you will frequently be told by ignorant gunshop clerks--that you can "...hit a man in the arm and the shock will travel through the blood to his brain and kill him..." Blood is carried in blood vessels, and those vessels are tough. Anyone who has dissected a freshly-dead animal will testify to the strength of an artery: it takes a good deal of force to rupture one, and physical displacement for a few milliseconds isn't enough. It's perfectly possible to displace an artery by several inches permanently with no loss of function. To do significant damage the artery has actually to be hit by the bullet, preferably by the sharp edges of the expanded outer jacket, which will cut it.

Furthermore, there is no way the "shock wave" could "travel through the blood" because the design of the system is such that a) it permits only one-way flow; and 2) it dampens pressure oscillations of considerable magnitude. Arteries that carry blood to the body are very muscular structures and designed to resist considerable heads of pressure lest they burst. And as they get smaller and smaller, ramifying to all the organs, the resistance to flow increases greatly. Even if you were to set up a significant "shock wave" locally, it wouldn't get very far in the system before the increasing resistance to its passage would dampen it out completely.

The True Believers in the "hydrostatic shock" myth often point to the messy soup found inside the chest of deer hit in the lungs as "proof" they are right. But they are really pointing to a major hole in their argument. There isn't any "free" blood in the chest of any mammal: like blood elsewhere, it's in blood vessels.

The lungs are a sort of enormous capillary bed, with millions of small blood vessels lying between the gas-exchange surfaces. Most of the volume of the chest is air. The vast quantities of blood found in the chest cavity of a lung-shot animal weren't there when the shot was fired. The free blood found in the chest after a shooting got there because the bullet damaged the blood vessels running through the area.

An expanding bullet does a fearful amount of damage to the extremely delicate tissue of the lungs, but this region also includes major blood vessels (the aorta and pulmonary artery, to name two) which are usually damaged as well. These pour enormous quantities of blood into the thoracic cavity when they're ruptured. Contraction of the body musculature and the pumping of the heart (if it too isn't hit) will assure this. The blood in the chest cavity is the result of the damage, not the cause of it, and the "shock wave" isn't propagated through it at all.


----------



## .243 whackmaster

copied and pasted

4. Presumption of "Kinetic Energy Deposit" to Be a Mechanism of Wounding:
Serious misunderstanding has been generated by looking upon "kinetic energy transfer" from projectile to tissue as a mechanism of injury. In spite of data to the contrary, many assume that the amount of "kinetic energy deposit" in the body by a projectile is a measure of damage . Such opinions ignore the direct interaction of projectile and tissue that is the crux of wound ballistics. Wounds that result in a given amount of "kinetic energy deposit" may differ widely. The nondeforming rifle bullet of the AK-74 causes a large temporary cavity which can cause marked disruption in some tissue (liver), but has far less effect in others (muscle, lung, bowel wall). A similar temporary cavity such as that produced by the M-16 stretching tissue that has been riddled by bullet fragments, causes a much larger permanent cavity by detaching tissue segments between the fragment paths. Thus projectile fragmentation can turn the energy used in temporary cavitation into a truly destructive force because it is focused on areas weakened by fragment paths rather than being absorbed evenly by the tissue mass. The synergy between projectile fragmentation and cavitation can greatly increase the damage done by a given amount of kinetic energy. 
A large slow projectile will crush (permanent cavity) a large amount of tissue, whereas a small fast missile with the same kinetic energy will stretch more tissue (temporary cavity) but crush little. If the tissue crushed by a projectile includes the wall of the aorta, far more damaging consequences are likely to result than if this same projectile "deposits" the same amount of energy beside this vessel.

Many body tissues (muscle, skin, bowel wall, lung) are soft and flexible--the physical characteristics of a good shock absorber. Drop a raw egg onto a cement floor from a height of 2 m; then drop a rubber ball of the same mass from the same height. The kinetic energy exchange in both dropped objects was the same at the moment of impact. Compare the difference in effect; the egg breaks while the ball rebounds undamaged. Most living animal soft tissue has a consistency much closer to that of the rubber ball than to that of the brittle egg shell. This simple experiment demonstrates the fallacy in the common assumption that all kinetic energy "deposited" in the body does damage.

The assumption that "kinetic energy deposit" is directly proportional to damage done to tissues also fails to recognize the components of the projectile-tissue collision that use energy but do not cause tissue disruption. They are 1) sonic pressure wave, 2) heating of the tissue, 3) heating of the projectile, 4) deformation of the projectile, and 5) motion imparted to the tissue (gelatin bloc displacement for example).

The popular format for determination of "kinetic energy deposit" uses a chronograph to determine striking velocity and another to determine exit velocity. A 15-cm thick block of tissue simulant (gelatin or soap) is the target most often used. This method has one big factor in its favor; it is simple and easy to do. As for its validity, the interested reader is referred to wound profiles shown in Figs 1-7. Comparing only the first 15 cm of the missile path with the entire missile path as shown on the profiles shows the severe limitation of the 15-cm block format. The assumption by weapons developers that only the first 15 cm of the penetrating projectile's path through tissue is of clinical significance may simplify their job, but fails to provide sufficient information for valid prediction of the projectile's wounding potential. The length of bullet trajectories through the human torso can be up to four times as long as those in these small blocs. Even if this method were scientifically valid, its use has been further flawed by nearly all investigators who have included the M-16 rifle bullet in those projectiles tested. This method assumes that the projectile's mass remains constant through both chronographs. The M-16 routinely loses one third of its mass in the form of fragments which may remain in the target . The part of the bullet that passes through the second chronograph screens weighs only about two-thirds as much as the intact bullet that passed through the first set of screens. No provision is made for catching and weighing the projectile to correct for bullet fragmentation when it occurs. The failure to correct for loss of bullet mass can cause large errors in "energy deposit".

Surgeons sometimes excise tissue from experimental missile wounds that is, in their judgment, nonviable and compare the weight of tissue excised with the "kinetic energy deposited" . A surgeon's judgment and his technique of tissue excision is very subjective, as shown by Berlin et al , who found in a comparison that "One surgeon excised less tissue at low energy transfers and rather more at high energy transfers than the other surgeon, although both surgeons used the same criteria when judging the tissues." None of these experiments included control animals to verify that tissue the surgeon had declared "nonviable" actually became necrotic if left in place. Interestingly, all studies in which animals were kept alive for objective observations of wound healing report less lasting tissue damage than estimated from observation of the wound in the first few hours after it was inflicted . In a study of over 4,000 wounded in WW II it was remarked, "It is surprising to see how much apparently nonvital tissue recovered" .

Anyone yet unconvinced of the fallacy in using kinetic energy alone to measure wounding capacity might wish to consider the example of a modern broadhead hunting arrow. It is used to kill all species of big game, yet its striking energy is only about 50 ft-lb (68 Joules)-- less than that of the .22 Short bullet. Energy is used efficiently by the sharp blade of the broadhead arrow. Cutting tissue is far more efficient than crushing it, and crushing it is far more efficient than tearing it apart by stretch (as in temporary cavitation).


----------



## .17remman

.243 Whackmaster,

You have given a lot of speculation, but not much proof. An arrow does kill affectively from the severing of arteries and internal organs. This is why a seasoned bow hunter will wait *2 or 3 hours *after the animal has been hit to let the animal bleed out.

After the paragraphs of speculation, you still cease to give me the slightest conviction that you know anything about a weapon, let alone physics. Go to college and get an education. Incompetence and arrogance are only the beginning that a jackal mouth does not match a hummingbird's ***.


----------



## .243 whackmaster

What I'm trying to get across is bullet energy has no bearing on how an animal is killed. there is very little energy tranfer to an animal. there is no such thing as knock down power. Sorry. Bullet energy is very misleading. people read into ballistics and emphasize on energy. which is a false.

Now back to a bow. yes I know a bow kills and kills well. yet it has very very low kinetic energy. I killed 2 this year with a bow, and many more in the past years, and I have never had to wait hours, more like minutes. They bleed out very quickly with a well placed shot.


----------



## headhunter

Topic title, (yes a 243 is a deer gun)

Answer, Not a very good one


----------



## Burly1

You've obviously found someone who not only writes well, but believes strongly in splitting hairs, as you obviously do. You and your favorite author should share your knowledge with the ammunition companies. Show them the error of their ways, so to speak. To be honest, I don't care what you want to call whatever it is that causes a deer to literally be knocked off it's feet, but it's fun to see it happen.  Endit. Burl


----------



## .243 whackmaster

wigglesworth said:


> whackermaster...
> I think it was the shot placement. The bullet skimmed the outside of the body cavity, tearing as it came out the same side it came in. I have used a 243 all my life and yet to see it leave a hole like that. Thanks for confirming the 243 is a deer rifle, have a good day and happy holidays


OK heres another pic, this one was shot last year, entrance wound is the front and check out the 3" exit hole in the back. .243 again


----------



## .243 whackmaster

copied and pasted.

The often referred to "knock-down power" implies the ability of a bullet to move its target. This is nothing more than momentum of the bullet. It is the transfer of momentum that will cause a target to move in response to the blow received. "Isaac Newton proved this to be the case mathematically in the 17th Century, and Benjamin Robins verified it experimentally through the invention and use of the ballistic pendulum to determine muzzle velocity by measurement of the pendulum motion."29

Goddard amply proves the fallacy of "knock-down power" by calculating the heights (and resultant velocities) from which a one pound weight and a ten pound weight must be dropped to equal the momentum of 9mm and .45ACP projectiles at muzzle velocities, respectively. The results are revealing. In order to equal the impact of a 9mm bullet at its muzzle velocity, a one pound weight must be dropped from a height of 5.96 feet, achieving a velocity of 19.6 fps. To equal the impact of a .45ACP bullet, the one pound weight needs a velocity of 27.1 fps and must be dropped from a height of 11.4 feet. A ten pound weight equals the impact of a 9mm bullet when dropped from a height of 0.72 inches (velocity attained is 1.96 fps), and equals the impact of a .45 when dropped from 1.37 inches (achieving a velocity of 2.71 fps).30

A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against the shooter and he too would be knocked down. This is simple physics, and has been known for hundreds of years.31 The amount of energy deposited in the body by a bullet is approximately equivalent to being hit with a baseball.32 Tissue damage is the only physical link to incapacitation within the desired time frame, i.e., instantaneously.


----------



## .17remman

And yet, the .30-06 with 180 grain nosler partitions will shoot through a 7/8" steel plate at 100 meters. There have been temperatures recorded while the bullet is passing through the plate. The average temperature as the base of the bullet was exiting the plate was 596 degrees Celsius (1104.8 degrees Fahrenheit). Now explain to me how the energy of a baseball can do this?

The Kinetic Energy recorded at the plate averaged 2739 ft/lbs. The test used the same type of scale used to record kinetic energy on a crash test dummy in car crash experiments.

Kinetic energy is not conserved in a perfectly inelastic collision. Therefore, the medium being contacted by the bullet will take most of the energy.

Thank you for the debate. It has been fun, but I will not continue to reply to this post because it is going no where.


----------



## Burly1

We need an emoticon of a guy beating a dead horse.


----------



## .243 whackmaster

.17remman said:


> And yet, the .30-06 with 180 grain nosler partitions will shoot through a 7/8" steel plate at 100 meters. There have been temperatures recorded while the bullet is passing through the plate. The average temperature as the base of the bullet was exiting the plate was 596 degrees Celsius (1104.8 degrees Fahrenheit). Now explain to me how the energy of a baseball can do this?
> 
> The Kinetic Energy recorded at the plate averaged 2739 ft/lbs. The test used the same type of scale used to record kinetic energy on a crash test dummy in car crash experiments.
> 
> Kinetic energy is not conserved in a perfectly inelastic collision. Therefore, the medium being contacted by the bullet will take most of the energy.
> 
> Thank you for the debate. It has been fun, but I will not continue to reply to this post because it is going no where.


"Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders Vol.I and II. by P.O. Ackley". He was perhaps the greatest gunsmith and wildcater who ever lived. He backed up his information with cold hard tests, often complete with pictures.

His wildcat creations are still used today many, many years later and his two books were not just reloading manuels but had many amazing stories about his experiments into the then, vast unkown world of ballistics and rifle actions.

He astounded the world when he proved that a military rifle that at that time was largely scorned was the safest and strongest rifle action every made. The Jap 6.5 Arisaka.

But what I found even more astounding was his article on one of the deadliest calibers ever invented "The 220 Swift".

Ackley backed up his claim with actual tests on armor plating and live animals complete with pictures. He fired at a U.S. half-track that had 1/2 inch thick armor plating with three calibers, A military round of 30-06 Armor piercing that penetrated only .07 of an inch, a .270 Winchester with high velocity 100 grain bullets that flatened out and a .220 swift factory load with 48 grain bullet at 4,100 fps. The Swift punched right through the 1/2 inch thick armor plate. This astounded even Ackley who therorized that the bullets high rotational spin had a lot to do with penetration. The rotational spin was a fantastic 212,916 revolutions per minute. Sound familier? Fast forward to the U.S. military that went to the 62 grain .223 bullet out of a fast 1 in 7 twist for more drill like penetration of helmets many years later.

And that was not all to this story.

Akley and his friends not only hunted deer but had the opportuninty in 1948 in Arizona to thin out herds of feral burros that weighed as much as 600 pounds. They were wild burros that had been specially bred to be as big as Missouri mules by Miners years perviously. The fellows participating in the hunt were all armed with weapons like the 30-40 Kraig, 30-06 and German 8mm. They all laughed when Ackley showed up with a .220 swift but Akley only smiled and promised not to use the gun if it proved too underpowered.

Well, when Akley unleashed hell on earth the rest of the hunters saw burro's colapse like they were hit with bolt lightning as far away as 600 yards and even gut shot burros colapsed in their tracks. Soon everyone was screaming to get a turn at using one of the most deadlist calibers on earth.

I remember reading articles by others which seemed unbelievable at the time of even Grizzly bears being slain with one shot.

Many new calibers have been invented since those days and with todays new super magunums perhaps using very light weight bullets of larger caliber we might have a combination that would beat the old .220 Swift but since no one to my knowledge has tried this we will have to wait and find out if some newer , bigger caliber can equal this feat of the .220 Swift of so long ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## johnsona

So it seems that since you don't believe in a transfer of energy from the bullet to the target, you use a very destructive bullet that blows the hell out of whatever you're shooting, because you state that what kills an animal is the wound channel and damage created. Now I've shot a few animals with a rifle, and have never had one go out of sight after it was hit, and I ruined a whole heck of a lot less meat. And that's with bigger cartridges than the .243. I'm extremely curious, what bullet style and weight are you shooting?



> We need an emoticon of a guy beating a dead horse.


I agree. But only if it has two giant holes in it from a .243.


----------



## .243 whackmaster

Burly1 said:


> We need an emoticon of a guy beating a dead horse.


----------



## .243 whackmaster

I hope you guys read all of this, but you probably wont cause it doesnt coincide with your theory's.

Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories:
The Mechanics of Terminal Ballistics 
III. Myths, Misconceptions and Miscalculations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III.a. "Energy Dump", "Overpenetration" and "Hydrostatic Shock"

There is a myth to the effect that a bullet which remains inside a target is more effective (in terms of stopping or killing power) than one which completely penetrates. This myth is not new. Colonel Townsend Whelen writes in his very illuminating treatise, Small Arms Design and Ballistics, that "the thought at that time was that the ideal bullet should just shoot through the animal to its opposite side, and lodge under the skin without penetrating clear through, thus expending all its energy on the beast" (p. 137). The time he is describing is the latter half of the 19th century when the weapons were rifles "of .45 caliber, shooting a bullet of 350 to 550 grains and with a charge of black powder sufficient to give it a muzzle velocity of from 1300 to 1500 fps" (p. 136). Even in these early days of ballistics inquiry the significance of kinetic energy was being examined.

Unfortunately the conclusion reached by some is arrant nonsense. It is interesting that the 19th century model of "energy dump" required the bullet to completely pass through the body, but stop under the skin on the off-side; combining the features of an "energy dump" with lethal penetration and cavitation.

There are at least two contemporary variations on the "energy dump" premise. The principal argument seems to center on the concept of "overpenetration", which is essentially the same thought as expressed in the 19th century but with the added evidence of actual results from gunfights on the street (the chief culprit being the rather pointed 9 mm FMJ bullet). Bullets which "overpenetrate" do not stop opponents as readily as those that remain in the body. Therefore, if the energy isn't "wasted" on exit, the bullet is more effective. Right?

Not exactly. A bullet of a given construction and impact velocity will create a cavity of predictable dimensions over its path, whether it stops or penetrates completely. Therefore, if the hole created can penetrate all the way through, it causes more damage than if it stops at some point. The critical issue here is what sort of hole are we making, not whether it goes all the way through. "Overpenetration" is a misnomer. The ineffective stopping attributed to overpenetration is actually caused by "undercavitation".

I have a pet .41 Magnum load (170 gr Sierra JHC with a muzzle velocity of 1500 fps) that will probably penetrate more than 15 inches if it doesn't hit heavy bones, but the cavity created by this bullet is enormous, much larger and originating at a shallower depth than that caused by a 5.56 x 45 mm M193 military bullet. In short, it is much more lethal than the very lethal 5.56 mm. These two loads have essentially the same kinetic energy. There is no comparison between this cavity and the one produced by a Federal .40 S&W 180 gr HP, which is also a very effective "stopper". Am I to think that my .41 Magnum load is less potent because it penetrates farther?

If there were an ideal case from the standpoint of efficiency, I suppose it would be for a bullet which completely, but just barely, penetrated and fell to the ground. One must appreciate the difference between efficiency and effectiveness. (The engine tunings of dragsters are not efficient!) In this case the bullet has done all the damage that it can do to that particular target at that particular angle of entry. The problem here, of course, is that one cannot predict the exact size and toughness of the game encountered, or the exact range, which would have to be known in order to achieve the precise impact velocity required for ideal efficiency. All of these uncertainties drive bullet loads to exceed the minimum performance, and this is accomplished by designing a bullet that will create an adequate cavity while deeply penetrating over a wide range of impact velocities. Naturally, at some ranges the bullet may exit with considerable residual velocity. This wasted energy is irrelevant if the wound is adequate.

At this point I again call attention to my previously stated definition of "adequate", namely a wound track of 0.75 to 1.00 inches (19 to 25 mm) in diameter through heart, lungs or major arteries. A smaller hole through major arteries only (for example) will kill, but the game may run a significant distance and be lost. It is also infinitely more difficult to track wounded game without a blood trail than with one that looks as if it were painted with a roller, and entrance wounds rarely bleed much. A larger cavity at shallow depth may drop a game animal instantly, but what is gained by less than 25 to 100 yards at the risk of an inadequate wound if a difficult angle is involved or major bones intervene or the bullet self-destructs unpredictably? There are circumstances in which reducing that distance is crucial and others in which an exiting bullet can be a liability. It is not a cut and dried issue. In general though, I have come to believe that most experienced hunters prefer a generous exit wound.

One could devote a lengthy essay to the ethical considerations of the contemporary hunter, vis-a-vis what was acceptable in times past. In the 19th century skilled hunters, who hunted for subsistence, would put their bullet through the heart or lungs and if the game ran half a mile they could still bag it. For most of us, times have changed. We lack the tracking skills of our forebears and the moral justification to use marginally effective weapons. Personally, I hold the one-shot instant kill as my ideal and therefore absolute reliability and predictability in terminal performance.

Tactical considerations concerning penetration are a different matter entirely. Bullets such as the Glaser Safety Slug were designed primarily with tactical considerations in mind, rather than optimal wounding. Glasers are designed not to penetrate aircraft or sheetrock walls, or to exit from the body of the target and endanger someone immediately behind. Glasers and similar such designs create extremely effective wounds if they do not have to penetrate deeply.

For those who yet doubt, consider a hypothetical example of two projectiles with equal kinetic energies. One is a 1 lb gel-filled bag launched at 60 fps. The other is a 490 gr broadhead arrow travelling at 225 fps. Both have a kinetic energy of 55 ft-lbs. Which would you rather be hit by? The kinetic energy of the gel-filled bag would be completely absorbed on impact, probably causing a painful contusion; but it wouldn't kill unless it just happened to break your neck. The arrow would easily and completely penetrate a human torso from any angle and continue travelling with residual energy, but prove highly lethal.

"However," one might object, "we're only considering a mere 55 ft-lbs. What happens when the energy levels are comparable to that of a high powered rifle?"

An excellent question. Assume 2000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy, about that of a .308 cal, 165 gr Ballistic Tip fired from a .30-`06 Springfield to a game animal at 250 yds; well within its effective range for lethal dispatch on large game. This equates, in strict energy terms, to the kinetic energy of a 50 lb bag of fertilizer when dropped from a height of 24.86 ft. That sounds awful and I daresay it would clobber most living things, but its the kinetic energy of the falling bag of fertilizer, not necessarily the effect of the falling bag itself, which is under consideration. The actual momentum transfer of the bullet is slightly less than that of the gel-filled 1 lb bag previously described, and if one were wearing body armor to slow the absorbtion of energy at impact, that is what would be felt - a good solid thump. With the body armor one's body absorbs all of the kinetic energy without harm, without it the bullet penetrates and exits using only a portion of its kinetic energy but delivers a lethal wound. Two "foot-tons" of kinetic energy does not equate with the impact of a full-size sedan. It is not the energy itself that kills, it is the character of the work done by it.

To be fair, in this case the body armor helps to absorb the energy, in lieu of one's flesh and bone, and to distribute the force exerted over a larger area. I cannot defend the premise that game animals or unprotected people can absorb 2000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy instantaneously (and this is essential) with complete impunity. Moreover, I can think of no hunting bullets for rifles today which do not provide adequate penetration under most circumstances against the game for which they are intended. But there are frangible bullets composed of compressed metal powders which disintegrate upon impact, expending all of their kinetic energy without penetrating, and these are not suitable for hunting, although they may inflict wounds which are ultimately fatal. Varmint bullets are also demonstrated miserable performers on big game, although under ideal conditions (missing all heavy bones on a clear broadside lung shot) they can kill spectacularly against lightly bodied deer and antelope. Hit the shoulder or angle from the rear and its ruinous.

Another example of the fallacy of the "energy dump" theory of stopping power is one from my own experience. I once shot a thin metal screen with my 41 Magnum (210 gr. HP, 1350 fps, 850 ft-lbs) at a very close range (do not try this at home!). The bullet was completely stopped; it lay on the ground in front of the mesh screen. The screen apparently had completely absorbed all of the kinetic energy of the bullet. However, the screen suffered no serious damage; there was only a faint depression where the bullet had struck and glanced. What actually occurred is that the screen "gave" against some tall grass when impacted and caught the bullet like a catcher's mitt. When I attempted to reproduce this spectacular behavior for a friend of mine, the screen was supported so that it did not give and was easily perforated by the bullets.

This last example from actual "testing" graphically demonstrates why the energy dump premise is fundamentally flawed. These examples also serve to illustrate the profound differences between kinetic energy and momentum. Kinetic energy is an exponential function of velocity, momentum is not. However, one should not assume from this that kinetic energy means nothing, or is somehow unrelated to wounding potential. Clearly, the naked human torso (and that of even large and tough game) is far more capable of absorbing a low velocity impact than the kinetic energy of a rifle bullet with a corresponding momentum.

The rate of energy transfer to the target is vastly more important than the quantity of energy transferred. This is the technical definition of power. Anyone sunbathing on a clear summer day at the beach will receive an irradiance equivalent to over 4600 ft-lbs every minute! Eventually, this bombardment by extremely high velocity particles will result in sunburn, but the body can withstand the energy it receives because it is spread over a large area and arrives at a relatively slow rate (compared with bullets). The power and intensity (power per unit area) is much less than ballistic events.

The other popular contemporary misconception results from the assumption that the kinetic energy of the bullet is "transferred" to the target, thereby somehow killing it through "hydrostatic shock".

I don't know where this term originated, but it is pseudoscience babble. In the first place, these are dynamic - not static - events. Moreover, "hydrostatic shock" is an oxymoron. Shock, in the technical sense, indicates a mechanical wave travelling in excess of the inherent sound speed of the material; it can't be static. This may be a flow related wave like a bow shock on the nose of a bullet in air or it may be a supersonic acoustic wave travelling through a solid after impact. In terms of bullets striking tissue, shock is never encountered. The sound speed of water (which is very close to that of soft tissue) is about 4900 fps. Even varmint bullets do not have an impact velocity this high, let alone a penetration velocity exceeding 4900 fps.

Some people use "shock" in the colloquial sense to describe a violent impact, but it is confusing, especially in connection with the term "hydrostatic" and lends undeserved quasi-scientific merit to the slang. It also tends to get confused with the medical expression attending trauma. We are not describing any medical shock.

Before I become too dogmatic and overstate the situation, let me concede that there may be some merit to the idea that hydrodynamic (not hydrostatic) impulse created by bullets which have a high kinetic energy and generally exhibit violent cavitation, can cause some secondary effects due to pressure on the nervous system or heart. It is possible to kill manually by nerve "strangulation". In this case actual damage to the central nervous system is not caused, but the signals governing the heart or diaphragm are shut off, resulting in instantaneous unconsciousness or even death. Certain rare sports fatalities have been definitely attributed to a swift blow which interrupts the cardiac rhythm. Acoustic pressure on the spine can also cause temporary paralysis. These phenomena may account for the rapid effectiveness of some high-velocity hollow-point pistol bullets, especially in cases in which the victim is not mortally wounded and recovers consciousness within a few minutes. Several special handgun loads have been designed with no regard whatsoever to penetration (e.g., the THV bullet) in order to achieve this result. Unfortunately, this is an unreliable mechanism of incapacitation, generally obtained at the expense of effective penetration. No bullet yet designed will produce this effect even 10% of the time. Many of the bullets designed to utilize this effect can be defeated by common barriers, such as glass, sheetrock, and even clothing. Doing this deliberately by hand, even with a profound understanding of the mechanism and vital points, is extremely uncertain; using the passage of a pressure wave from a bullet to accomplish this falls into the freak event category. Such is never an acceptable mechanism for the hunter.

The point that I have attempted to press here (perhaps in a rambling fashion) is that complete penetration is not something to avoid in the hunting field. In fact there is good evidence that through and through wounds cause collapse quicker in many instances, especially lengthwise shots.

On the other hand, as I have alluded to previously, some contemporary bullet designs (Nosler Ballistic Tip and Remington Bronze Point) as well as some renowned performers from years past (e.g., the original 130 gr. load of the .270 Winchester) achieve a high percentage of instantaneous kills by blowing to bits and never exiting the game. I find this interesting in view of the current obsession with avoiding bullets in which the lead cores separate from the jacket. There are few situations in which simple slip separation (core and jacket traveling forward together) would be disadvantageous, although complete separation invariably leaves the jacket behind and makes the core vulnerable to premature fragmentation. But returning to the issue, the successful frangible bullet designs nevertheless always penetrate to the vitals and have never been regarded as reliable for rear raking shots requiring deep penetration or against very tough heavy game and most knowledgeable authorities prefer bullets which exhibit modest cavitation with deep penetration because of their flexibility in the field.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III.b. Momentum and "Stopping Power"

There is another branch of armchair ballistics which favors the use of momentum as a raw measure of "stopping power". I confess that I was long enamored of this view because it seemed to give more credit to lower velocity big-bore cartridges that were strong performers than the kinetic energy story told, but momentum alone is equally inadequate to describe terminal behavior and the arguments given in support of that view are as full of blue sky nonsense as any claim made of kinetic energy.

The old African hunters talked of "stoppers" which would cause a charging pachyderm to halt its forward progress in its tracks and stand stock still in a daze. This situation applied only to (if you carefully note the details) the truly huge weapons such as the 8 and 4 bore blackpowder rifles and later .577 and .600 Nitro Expresses when fired into the spongy skull of an elephant, but when the brain is closely missed. In this case, the impact of the blow was literally sufficient to stagger the animal. It is to be noted, however, that these ancient blackpowder weapons could only be used by men of considerable size and strength and even they dreaded pulling the trigger. Frederick Courteney Selous says that using such weapons crippled him and Sir Samuel Baker foreswore such things as soon as he developed guns and loads capable of dependable penetration, preferring the far less punishing 10 bore!

Unless you hunt elephant with these antique monsters, and I don't know of anyone alive who does, then "stopping" an animal in this sense isn't a matter of concern. From what I've read, one cannot depend upon a similar effect on the remarkably tough Cape buffalo until something like a .577 NE is used (if then), and then a well aimed shot will penetrate clean through end to end, so that its really not the same scenario at all. Proper stopping of a charge depends on shot placement.

Similar rules apply to human targets. The human frame is so lightly constructed that any "stopper" class weapon will easily penetrate through even after encountering major bones. Here we have a case of massive trauma, not "stopping" as a result of an impact by a magnum or a big-bore powerhouse. Again, the force of the blow is comparable to the recoil of the gun. It has to be. That's physics. In either case the bullet is acting under high acceleration loads over a short distance. Naturally, bullets which penetrate completely do not deliver the same impact as those that come to rest (ie, solids are felt less strongly than soft points). There are always anecdotal accounts (invariably told by those who have never shot anyone) of people being hurled off their feet by a .45 ACP using hardball when pathetic little .38 Special bullets are shrugged off without effect. In actuality, there are quite as many incidents of people shrugging off .45 slugs as for many lesser calibers.

There are some exceptions to the general rule that lethal wounding is caused by cavitation and penetration. These exceptions are cases in which the impact causes a pressure pulse of such magnitude through the body of the target, that it is instantly killed (notice I deliberately avoided the word "shock"). This happens, for example, when you shoot a chipmunk with a .30-`06, even if the chipmunk wears body armor. It doesn't happen often (if ever) against big game and humans with ordinary (ie, shoulder fired) weapons (NOTE: I'm not referring here to hits against the central nervous system, or to any hit which results in a penetration; only to hits which could kill exclusively from the force of the impact). I haven't yet seen any cases in which a wound that did not reach to the vital organs resulted in death - except as a result of septicemia.

What this means is that if all of the momentum of a high-powered rifle bullet were delivered by a non-penetrating blow, the damage inflicted on any game larger than a small varmint would be relatively insignificant.

I've asked people who have been shot to describe their sensations of being shot, physical reactions, etc. The common response is that the impact feels precisely like the impact of a punch. It is not any more impressive. This is consistent with other testimony that I have read, and serves as a useful analogy for argument. A punch is not staggering unless it also causes debilitating damage, usually to the brain, but alternatively to the lungs, etc. - or in the case of the victim being surprised, off balance, etc. The impact of a bullet behaves according to similar constraints, all things being relative (ie, a .458 Winchester Magnum causes relatively more of an impact to a man than to an elephant because of the size difference, assuming the force of the impact is absorbed in both cases).

Many readers will doubt the truth of this assertion. Some will say, "I have actually seen a deer do a complete somersault!". Many people have, but it wasn't caused by the force of the impact. For the skeptical among you, if you require proof that the spectacular flips often reported are merely an apparent effect of the bullet impact, I challenge you to rent a video of dangerous game hunting in Africa and observe the effect of bullet impact on downed, already dead, animals when the insurance shot is made. This practice isn't carried out on deer and it separates the effect of the bullet from the effect of the living animal. Lions and even buffalo may seem to flip high in the air, but if they are dead the bodies only quiver ever so slightly; its barely visible, and these are shots through the most massive shoulder and spinal bones, delivering the greatest resistance and impact. Alternatively, you can perform a penetration test into wet phonebooks that completely absorbs the impact in a manner very similar to a game animal. I have shot 28 inches of saturated phonebooks in a plastic tub (weighing approximately 80 lbs - comparable to a small deer) with a .340 Weatherby Magnum firing a 225 grain bullet at 2900 fps (at ten feet). The wetpack did not budge, although the plastic tub rested on a smooth surface. More recently, that same load was used to kill a springbok in Namibia. My first shot seemed to crush the diminutive antelope in its tracks. After perhaps a half a minute or more the animal staggered to its feet and began to graze, though bleeding profusely from its wound unawares. I shot it lengthwise of its body. It did not move at all this time, but after a few seconds it pitched over sideways, stiff-legged and dead. Same load, but the numbed beast did not feel the second impact, even though the bullet did not exit. I have conducted the same test into a wetpack using a .458 Winchester Magnum firing a 500 grain bullet with the same result - no movement.

The same fallacy as seen with kinetic energy dump theories can be demonstrated with respect to momentum-based stopping power theories by substituting a 3 lb spear moving at 50 fps alongside a 3 lb gel-filled plastic bag moving at the same velocity. Now we have two projectiles with exactly the same masses and momentum. Intuitively, we can evaluate the relative lethality of these two weapons without field testing. Incidentally, these both produce the same momentum as a .458 Winchester Magnum loaded with 500 grain bullets. The .458 Winchester Magnum is a "heavy hitter". Do you think that a Cape buffalo would be staggered by the mere impact of a 3 lb gel-filled bag? A haymaker punch (15 fps), using about 50% of the body weight of a 180 lb man would have a kinetic energy of about 300 ft-lbs, but a momentum over eight times greater than that of a .458 Winchester Magnum or .450 Rigby Nitro Express; indeed a hard swift jab (50 fps) would have a kinetic energy of still only about 350 ft-lbs, but a momentum almost three times greater than the standard in stopping class rifles! I wouldn't even dream of punching a Cape buffalo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III.c. Thresholds of Wounding Potential Based on Kinetic Energy

I think it was the sage and revered (and great favorite of mine) Col. Townsend Whelen who first proposed the idea that modern sporting arms ought to deliver at least 1000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy on the target for quick dispatch of deer and 2000 ft-lbs for larger species such as elk (Craig Boddington, American Hunting Rifles, Safari Press, 1995, pg. 20). This guidance has been reiterated for probably half a century or more now, but the world of smallbore ballistics today is very different than in the days when the esteemed Colonel was at the forefront of modern military small arms development with the U. S. Army Ordnance Department. Moreover, here is what he had to say in his own treatise on the subject of "Killing Power" over sixty years ago:

"The killing power of a bullet in flight depends entirely upon the average size of the wound it makes in the animal, and upon nothing else. The size of the wound in turn depends upon the size, weight, construction, and shape of the bullet, and the velocity with which it strikes, and upon no other details. ... We frequently see it stated that the killing power of a cartridge depends upon its energy, and tables of the properties of cartridges often give the energy of each. Now energy depends upon the weight of the bullet times its velocity, and on nothing else, and thus can have only a very distant bearing on our subject." (Townsend Whelen, The Hunting Rifle, Stackpole Sons, 1940, pg. 236)

An important fact to remember is that not all energy is "created equal". What this ultimately means is that a kinetic energy value used as a measure or threshold for lethality is practically meaningless. The character of the work done by a certain quantity of kinetic energy will be dependent upon the mass, construction and velocity of the projectile. In other words, 1000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy generated by a slow-moving rock is not as lethal as that of a bullet. Furthermore, the damage actually caused by a lesser amount of kinetic energy may easily exceed that caused by a greater quantity of kinetic energy! Expressed differently, kinetic energy has "quality" as well as "quantity". This is easier to understand in terms of heat energy, which has temperature (degrees F or C) as well as quantity (BTUs or Joules). Kinetic energy is governed by similar laws.

As further evidence of this fact, observe that when terminal ballistic experiments are scaled the velocity is held constant. Kinetic energy, mass and the dimensions are scaled, but velocity is not. In like manner pure water at standard pressure boils at 100° C, regardless of quantity. A small amount of water does not boil at a lower temperature than a larger amount. The heat required to bring a quantity of water to a boil is directly proportional to the mass of the water (just as the kinetic energy is proportional to the volume of displacement by a bullet), but the character of the work done on the water by that heat energy is determined by the temperature it produces. It is velocity, not kinetic energy, which is the quantity of greatest interest in the terminal ballistics of small arms.

Since a knowledge of the velocity and projectile construction is essential to evaluating the character of the kinetic energy and its wounding potential, simply relying on a quantity of energy can be quite misleading. The way in which a sporting bullet (say, a 7 mm 140 gr spitzer boat-tail at an impact velocity of 3000 fps) expends its first 1000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy on a target (from 2797 ft-lbs to 1797 ft-lbs) will little resemble the way in which it expends its last 1000 ft-lbs (at an impact velocity of 1794 fps, where it will most likely fail to deform and simply drill straight through causing a neat little hole with negligible cavitation). In the former case, a lung shot would result in a wide wound track and a gaping exit wound as it exits the body at 2405 fps, but cause rapid collapse; in the latter case even a lengthwise shot which fully absorbed the energy of the projectile would probably mean a lost game animal because of the low probability of causing rapid hemorrhage. Interestingly, in the former case probably 20% or more of that kinetic energy would be lost to deformation of the bullet, whereas in the latter case all of it would be delivered to the target. However, that same 1000 ft-lbs of energy delivered by a .41 caliber 280 gr LBT-WFN flatnosed hard-cast bullet at 1268 fps would quickly drop a bull elk with the same lung or lengthwise shot because its larger diameter and strong flat nose would create a large diameter and deep wound even after smashing through heavy shoulder bones. [Incidentally, this misunderstanding is not confined to the ballistics of sporting arms. I have encountered the notion in the last of year or so of a tank killing threshold of 10 MJ.]

A popular term among some gun buffs is the "foot-ton", a magical quanta of kinetic energy that is supposed to translate into all sorts of killing authority. Aside from the problem described above in assigning an arbitrary kinetic energy level for lethality against a type of game, there is the matter of unit definitions. If you like to think of it as the energy required to raise a one ton block a distance of one foot, that would be correct (again, not necessarily the same as being crushed by that falling block!). Forget the comparison to automobile impacts.

However, simply because a quantity of kinetic energy is not, in and of itself, enough to describe the wounding characteristics of our weapons does not imply that kinetic energy is not a valid measure of ballistic performance. We need not be reactionary or suppose that someone got it wrong and that what we need is a better "formula".

At the polar extreme from this viewpoint of using 1000 ft-lbs or 2000 ft-lbs to judge the killing capacity of a cartridge is a truly novel and disturbing conception highlighted in an article entitled "Stopping Power: A Skeptical Look at "Foot Pounds" as a Means to Measuring Your Rifle's Ballistic Energy" (Lee Saunders, Petersen's Rifle Shooter, June 1998, pp. 58 - 62) which is that kinetic energy is simply the arbitrary fabrication of some 18th century mathematician (c.f., Editorial Correspondance). Its as if the cancerous pseudoscience of gun writers has spread to corrupt even the hallowed precepts of true science. I shouldn't make it seem as if the author of this particular article were alone in his assumptions. The history of popular terminal ballistics in the 20th century saw several examples of this kind of crackpot science, such as Elmer Keith's ridiculous invention of "pounds-feet". What is most astounding about this latest outrage against science and clear reasoning is that the (former) editors of the magazine didn't know enough themselves to prevent its publication. I expect this sort of thing in cyberspace, but I expect a higher standard from publishers (incidentally, the present editorial staff has a much more scientifically founded perspective).

Had this article restricted its scope to the question of whether kinetic energy was a sufficient measure of terminal performance, we might have seen an insightful and interesting study. Unfortunately, it strayed into the realm of "Things I Don't Know". [We all need to know the limits of our knowledge and practice more learning than expounding. I have been as guilty as anyone.] If the average shooter doesn't know what is wrong with the following tidbits then this country has more serious problems than confusion about terminal ballistics:

"The upshot is that the kinetic energy formula is neither correctly labeled as to resulting units, nor particularly accurate in describing projectile energy. I get the feeling that it is used very little outside the ballistics field. [emphasis added] If it were, it would likely have been changed long ago... In the KE formula we have something that is provably wrong in regard to the foot-pounds label..." (pg. 62)

Since this has proved to be a pitfall for some I will unravel the mystery. Kinetic energy is calculated as mass times velocity squared. But pounds are actually a unit of force (i.e., weight), which is mass times acceleration (due to gravity in this case). So, to get kinetic energy we must divide by 32.174 ft/s2, which reduces the velocity squared terms of ft2/s2 simply to feet. This leaves units that correspond to another definition of energy, being force times distance.

The author displays an appalling incomprehension of junior high mathematics and general science, confusing a quantity squared with one doubled and addition with multiplication, using the terms energy, "impulse energy" (his own invention), momentum and force interchangeably, confusing rate with duration, and then has the incredible arrogance to unequivocally assert that 300 years of scientific inquiry is deluded, but that he perceives the truth of projectile motion. This article is so unspeakable that I go into hysterics when I read it. (To his credit, Saunders is a thoughtful experimentalist and his improvised ballistic slide demonstrates what I had earlier claimed, which was that a light jab produces as much impact and physical translation as a .375 H&H or a 12 ga. slug). Again, nobody thought it might be worthwhile to ask the local junior high science teacher if there might be a problem (or better still, remembered their junior high science classes!). I guess I expect too much and perhaps I am being too critical, but whether the average Joe understands the ins and outs of physics is not the issue - its the attitude that accredited science is no better than hip-pocket hooey that bothers me.

Just in case somebody doesn't know, foot-pounds are a real quantity and can be converted into BTUs, Joules, kilowatt-hours, calories, ergs or electron-volts as you please. All of these resolve down to the same fundamental quantities of mass times distance (divided by time) squared. Kinetic energy was not invented for the delight of gun writers. The different definitions of energy are based upon inter-related physical laws, none of which have been overturned since God created the universe, let alone in the last century.


----------



## Burly1

Okay. Who is the author?


----------



## .243 whackmaster

Ahhhh.... finally got someones attention. LOL Plenty of stuff out there on this subject, all one has to do is look.
heres a link to some good reading. Yes I read and I dont need to go to college to read or learn. ha ha.

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


----------



## swift

I know of a president of the US that was shot in the chest by a .22 rimfire short. He survived even though the shot was right where you would aim if it was a deer. There was another president shot in the head with a .264 caliber pushing 3000 fps. He was not so lucky. In medicine they teach us to evaluate the caliber of the weapon used as well as the distance of the shooter to help evaluate the potential damage done. Bullets do kill by energy dispersion, laceration and fragmentation. When a bullet goes through soft tissue the cavatation of the tissues behind the bullet is as devastating as the inital punch.


----------



## Plainsman

Simply because you find it in writing doesn't necessarily make it true. At one time folks wrote about the world being flat. Perhaps in the same book that someone said an artery or any other blood vessel is muscle. The closest muscle was between their ignorant ears.

You may not like the term hydrostatic shock, never the less the phenomenon does occur. Of course there are not vast quantities of "free" blood in the chest. But, body cells are separated by verry fragile cellular walls. Within each cell is a combination of things including blood. Tissue displaced at 100 feet per second does little damage to surrounding tissue. Tissue displaced at 3000 feet per second does tremendous damage.

Perhaps you don't like the term foot pounds of energy, but it is energy that drives the bullet. The weight of the bullet comes into play because it is the mass and the velocity that give the bullet the "energy" to continue through a given amount of tissue at a given velocity. It is the diameter of the bullet and the speed at which it passes through tissue that cause the damage. Large diameters passing at great speed turn the tissue it hits into secondary projectiles. Much like a cue ball hitting the racked balls.

I understand the points the authors are trying to make, but they are all screwed up. Call it whatever you want whacker, but it is lacerations, the velocity at which tissue is displaced that causes the damage.

Also, Ackley shouldn't have been surprised that a high velocity small bullet passed through steel that a lower velocity larger projectile failed to penetrate. Look at the resistance of the steel in terms of per square inch. The much smaller bullet met much less resistance and had much higher velocity.

There is an old theory of killing power called KO value. It gives bullets of large diameter and heavy weight much higher KO values than small bullets at high velocity. Go to the SST Rifle Room at http://www.benchrest.com/sst/taylor.html and you can fill in your own data. I fall between this theory and the velocity theory. However, the KO value is old school, and energy is the measure for the past 75 years. The old KO value gives as much killing power to my 44 mag as my 300 Win Mag. I know which I would prefer to have in my hands if a grizzly charges. I would also prefer it over your magic 220 swift. Keep the front sight off that swift. It want hurt so much when the grizzly shoves it up you're a$$.

edit: I forgot to mention velocity squared times mass squared divided by 450240 gives you foot pounds of energy of any moving object, be it a car, a baseball, an arrow, or a bullet.


----------



## .243 whackmaster

Plainsman said:


> Perhaps you don't like the term foot pounds of energy, but it is energy that drives the bullet. The weight of the bullet comes into play because it is the mass and the velocity that give the bullet the "energy" to continue through a given amount of tissue at a given velocity. It is the diameter of the bullet and the speed at which it passes through tissue that cause the damage. Large diameters passing at great speed turn the tissue it hits into secondary projectiles. Much like a cue ball hitting the racked balls.
> 
> I understand the points the authors are trying to make, but they are all screwed up. Call it whatever you want whacker, but it is lacerations, the velocity at which tissue is displaced that causes the damage.
> 
> Also, Ackley shouldn't have been surprised that a high velocity small bullet passed through steel that a lower velocity larger projectile failed to penetrate. Look at the resistance of the steel in terms of per square inch. The much smaller bullet met much less resistance and had much higher velocity.
> 
> There is an old theory of killing power called KO value. It gives bullets of large diameter and heavy weight much higher KO values than small bullets at high velocity. Go to the SST Rifle Room at http://www.benchrest.com/sst/taylor.html and you can fill in your own data. I fall between this theory and the velocity theory. However, the KO value is old school, and energy is the measure for the past 75 years. The old KO value gives as much killing power to my 44 mag as my 300 Win Mag. I know which I would prefer to have in my hands if a grizzly charges. I would also prefer it over your magic 220 swift. Keep the front sight off that swift. It want hurt so much when the grizzly shoves it up you're a$$.
> 
> edit: I forgot to mention velocity squared times mass squared divided by 450240 gives you foot pounds of energy of any moving object, be it a car, a baseball, an arrow, or a bullet.


Oh Noooooooooo TKO formulas. more trash.
Now lets analyze what you said. first, yes energy drove the bullet in the form of an explosion, but kinetic energy is no different than potential energy, it's the energy of mass in motion. to measure it's collision you have to convert it's energy to another form. lbs per sq inch would be an excellent way of measuring it's collision, heat would be another.
Dont you see why bullet kinetic energy is meaningless.
the 30-06 had more but yet failed to penetrate the steel.
Please dont get me wrong and think I'm saying a 220 swift is better than a 30-06. Just trying to point out the meaningless values of kinetic energy.
Theres a lot more to killing, but kinetic energy has nothing to do with it.
 Without a doubt bigger holes kill better. A slow moving 45 with relatively low Kinetic energy kills well. So does a broad tipped arrow.


----------



## Plainsman

Sorry guys, I gave you the wrong formula. The formula for foot pounds of energy of an object in motion is the velocity squared times the weight and for grains of weight divide by 450240. As an example a 165gr 308 traveling at 2700 fps would calculate as follows:
2700 X 2700 = 7290,000 X 165 = 1,202,850,000 / 450240 = 2672 foot pounds

243 whacker I looked at that sight , but the writer possessed so little social skills that it was a task to put up with him. In short he is arrogant beyond bearable. There was some very good ideas, and the person appears knowledgeable, but then there is also enough BS to float a battle ship. He brings up many credible writers only to belittle them in what appears to be character assassination simply to hold himself up for public admiration. I don't care how much this fellow knows he isn't someone I want to talk to or meet.



> Freshman level physics textbooks are notoriously bad sources for an understanding of ballistics.


 (Here we are to believe what a genius he is.)



> These bullet designs were intended to use rotational velocity


( I really doubt that)



> bullets can spin polish the hide even though they lack the axial velocity to exit


(What a crock, I have some swamp land for sale, spin polish the hide?????? Unbelievable. Bullets don't speed up after they leave the barrel. If your barrel has one turn in ten inches that is the spin imparted to the bullet. It slows down after that. To think that a bullet sits and spins against the hide like a top is unbelievable.



> Before I become too dogmatic and overstate the situation, let me concede that there may be some merit to the idea that hydrodynamic (not hydrostatic) impulse created by bullets which have a high kinetic energy and generally exhibit violent cavitation,


 (So the guy just wants to argue about nomenclature. I would think concepts were more important, but then that wouldn't give him anything to complain about.)



> Elmer Keith's ridiculous invention of "pounds-feet". What is most astounding about this latest outrage against science and clear reasoning is that the (former) editors of the magazine didn't know enough themselves to prevent its publication.
> The author displays an appalling incomprehension of junior high mathematics
> incredible arrogance


No need to belittle the guy. This uncalled for attack removes any credibility the author may have presented thus far. I question the motivation of his character attack.



> Not to pick on Wooters


(It is exactly what he wants to do. Rather than lift himself up by superiority he would rather appear so by kocking someone else down.)



> I hate to differ with the esteemed Colo


nel ( No he doesn't he finds great joy in disagreeing.)



> According to Louis L'Amour


( This guy was from Jamestown, and I enjoy his work, but he wasn't a ballistic expert. I also doubt that famous gunslingers shot for the hip of their opponent. Perhaps they shot from the hip (like the author here) but not at the hip.



> I hold very high ethical standards


(He finds it easy to brag about himself, but it is evident that he doesn't consider ethical standards to include how he treats the reputation of fellow humans.)

Whacker I have shot over a hundred deer, many with a 243, and I have never seen wounds like the pictures you present from any 22 caliber, 243 caliber, 308 caliber, and calibers with bullets up to 405 grain at 2250 fps. Was this a test on a semi frozen carcass with no thoracic organs left inside, or was it a live animal? I have seen frozen carcasses exhibit this type of damage, but not live tissue. The lack of hematoma around the exit wound would make me think the heart was not beating at the time of impact.


----------



## muskat

I started to read this thread, but got discouraged when .243 said energy is a theory, among other things.

Its amazing these days what people will take from a Google search and deam a gold standard.

Lets set a few things straight
1. Energy is a PROVEN theory. It comes from Newtons Second Law, Force = Mass x Acceleration. From this ALL energy equations are derived. The kinetic energy, or impact energy, is the time derivative of this equation, which is 1/2 mass x velocity squared.

2. Einstein's energy theory is on a different level than what you are dealing with when you are talking about ballistics.

3. Newtons Third law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction IF, and I stress the if, everything is in equilibrium. The mass of the bullet pales in comparison to the mass of the gun and your body.

Now that we are done with Technical stuff, lets move on to your points. The .243 is a legal caliber for taking deer. Its very effective in the hands of the right person. Shooting animals in the neck/head/kill zone is the key. I will never debate using a .243 as a deer gun.


----------



## Plainsman

Muskat

Your right we did get off track. The promotion was so strong for the site whackmaster touted that I think we may be dealing with a clever spamer. The site itself makes me think of the old adage "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull $hit".

I agree the 243 does a find job when used within it's limitations. One changes as time goes on and at a younger age I thought a 243 could do anything. Now I lean towards the idea that you can be underguned, but it's hard to be overguned. That said I would not hesitate to take a 243 after deer.


----------



## muskat

> Dont you see why bullet kinetic energy is meaningless.
> the 30-06 had more but yet failed to penetrate the steel.


I have several problems with the way you use this author to try to validate your points.

1. In the steel plate experiment, he knew EXACTLY what he was doing by making the experiment. The smaller bullet will have less contact area on the steel plate. I could go into a small rant on Metallurgy and the effect a carbon steel's lattice structure has on penetration, but I will let you Google and read all about it! The authors experiment is biased, period.

2. For some reason I have a problem with the author on the site you listed. Maybe its that he is arrogant, 'I believe in being forthright, so I will jump in with both feet and state the premise of my own theory of terminal ballistics.'
Or that of the links of "relative" content, the only one with bearing on what is being discussed here is dated 1980!!!

Keep on shooting the .243, it will easily kill deer. Open a book, not Google next time you want to research Laws of Physics. If you cant find one, I have several you could borrow.


----------



## .243 whackmaster

muskat said:


> I started to read this thread, but got discouraged when .243 said energy is a theory, among other things.
> 
> Its amazing these days what people will take from a Google search and deam a gold standard.
> 
> Lets set a few things straight
> 1. Energy is a PROVEN theory. It comes from Newtons Second Law, Force = Mass x Acceleration. From this ALL energy equations are derived. The kinetic energy, or impact energy, is the time derivative of this equation, which is 1/2 mass x velocity squared.
> 
> 2. Einstein's energy theory is on a different level than what you are dealing with when you are talking about ballistics.
> 
> 3. Newtons Third law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction IF, and I stress the if, everything is in equilibrium. The mass of the bullet pales in comparison to the mass of the gun and your body.
> 
> Now .


 I should have said ballistic kinetic energy is a theory.
For every action theres an equall and opposit reaction. How could a bullet deliver 2000 ft /bs of energy but on deliver 10 to the shoulder. a 10 lb gun will not absorb 1990 ft /bs of energy. jeez guys this aint that hard.
ballistic kinetic energy is a made up formula. It's not one of Netons laws.


----------



## johnsona

Alright man, just drop it already. You're not gonna change anyone's thinking here, and please don't talk about how "it's not that hard," because we understand it, we just don't agree with it. That's the same reason that most of the guys here aren't going out of their way to show you what they believe - they know they aren't gonna change what you think of it. Nobody is all of a sudden going to go "Oh, hey, you're right. :bowdown: Wow, I was wrong all along!" Just not gonna happen. You've clearly stated your beliefs and given some basis for it, but obviously there are a few of us that still disagree with you. This short-lived-and-now-dead-horse has been beaten to a pulp IMO.


----------



## .243 whackmaster

Plainsman said:


> Whacker I have shot over a hundred deer, many with a 243, and I have never seen wounds like the pictures you present from any 22 caliber, 243 caliber, 308 caliber, and calibers with bullets up to 405 grain at 2250 fps. Was this a test on a semi frozen carcass with no thoracic organs left inside, or was it a live animal? I have seen frozen carcasses exhibit this type of damage, but not live tissue. The lack of hematoma around the exit wound would make me think the heart was not beating at the time of impact.


 Whatever. Ya I was out shooting frozen dead deer. walkining around with branches stuck in there antlers.


----------



## headhunter

Its just not a very good deer gun.


----------



## muskat

> Its just not a very good deer gun


 :beer:

My last comment on the subject, and maybe I can make you understand what you are saying .243whackmaster. When you say 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction' (more commonly known as Newtons Third Law) everything must be the same. Mass of the bullet is NOT the same as the mass of the gun and human body.

Ex: 150 grain bullet weighs .0214286 lbs
Gun and Human Body weigh ~ 160 lbs (very liberal)

The mass of gun and body is over 7000 times greater than that of the bullet. THIS IS NOT AN EQUILIBRIUM, THEREFORE NEWTONS THIRD LAW DOES NOT APPLY.


----------



## .243 whackmaster

muskat said:


> Its just not a very good deer gun
> 
> 
> 
> :beer:
> Ex: 150 grain bullet weighs .0214286 lbs
> Gun and Human Body weigh ~ 160 lbs (very liberal)
> 
> The mass of gun and body is over 7000 times greater than that of the bullet. THIS IS NOT AN EQUILIBRIUM, THEREFORE NEWTONS THIRD LAW DOES NOT APPLY.
Click to expand...

Oh well i tried, i also guess will just have to agree on disagreeing.
But that last statment I could turn around too.
The body of a deer is over 7000 times greater than that of a bullet. 
THIS IS NOT AN EQUALIBRIUM THEREFORE NEWTONS THIRD LAW DOES NOT APPLY.


----------



## muskat

I lied, this is my last comment:

:eyeroll:


----------



## OneShotOneKill

*The 243 Winchester cartridge will today and forever always be an adequate choice for the humane harvesting of big game animals. It all comes down to the hunter's judgment.

Things to consider with the 243 Winchester cartridge and other small bore cartridges: Bullet weight & construction and chosen load. Additionally the shooters and firearms limits, and of course a reasonable distance a person ethically thinks is proper to take the animal.

Remember to have fun and be safe!
OneShotOneKill*


----------



## mr.trooper

Your still around? 

*Sigh*

Just use your common sense with a .243


----------



## killadoe

I enjoy shooting my .243, I treat it as I would any other gun I am hunting deer with. I take my time and make a good shot, if you do that you shouldnt ever have a problem shooting a .243. Only thing has anybody ever shot Remington Core lokt bullet 100 grain out of their .243.. If so How did you likem. Take Care


----------



## WingedShooter7

I have a deer shot 3 times this season killed three things

1 shot= 4by4 buck shot in head dropped dead no running
2 shot= coyote and a good 50 -75 yards yelped him
3 shot= doe probabaly 25 yard shoulder shot dropped dead.

I would have to say that .243 is a very good deer gun. Deer arent that big of an animal, well sorta but my grandpa has killed Elk with .243....and my dad and my great uncle(who is dead) killed more deer than my grandpa dad and me combined in his lifetime with that thing. Now im not arguing here im just saying that it is a good gun.


----------



## Desertrat

I guess I am another one of those "nuts" who has been very successful with deer hunting using a .243.....let's see....what is it....about 15 of them now?


----------



## John M

You can drop deer with a 22. long rifle if you shoot it in the head, even a pellet gun can, of course a 243 can


----------



## OneShotOneKill

*Mr. trooper,

I never left!

Just let me broaden Mr. trooper's statement a little.

Just use common sense with any hunting tool: pistol, bow, rifle, shotgun, muzzleloader, and what ever the legal caliber it may be.

Have fun and be safe!*


----------



## headhunter

The 243 is just a very limited hunting rifle. broadside,120 yards, small deer, a 243 will kill it every time.

250 yards, stiff wind, 4.5 year old whopper buck, choppy gate, a 243 is junk. :wink:


----------



## huntin1

headhunter said:


> The 243 is just a very limited hunting rifle. broadside,120 yards, small deer, a 243 will kill it every time.
> 
> 250 yards, stiff wind, 4.5 year old whopper buck, choppy gate, a 243 is junk. :wink:


Not hardly.

huntin1


----------



## .243 whackmaster

headhunter said:


> The 243 is just a very limited hunting rifle. broadside,120 yards, small deer, a 243 will kill it every time.
> 
> 250 yards, stiff wind, 4.5 year old whopper buck, choppy gate, a 243 is junk. :wink:


You do realise that most states laws make the .243 the minimum for elk.
deer aing got a chance against one at practically any distance.
Your wind theory is bunk also, it bucks the wind better than your 30-06


----------



## Ande8183

I have seen 243's take down mulie bucks at a long distance, I personally shoot a 270, but I would have no problem shooting a 243 at any deer. It all depends on shot placement


----------



## Slinger70

Potential energy is the cartridge resting in the rifle.
Kinetic energy is the stored energy of the projectile impacting the object struck. Basically this is the transfer of energy. Since, physically, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it went somewhere as the bullet came to rest. So there is without a doubt an amount of energy being released on/absorbed by the deer. Now there may be an argument that the differences between bullets can be deemed as negligible, but that isn't what a ballistics block will show you. 
In utilizing Newton's second law a larger mass will net a greater force. 
After striking the target, then you have to deal with determining elastic and/or inelastic collision formulas.
N1L: If no net force acts on a body then the body's velocity cannot change. Not very applicable here
N2L: F=ma Acceleration here being gravity, m being mass
N3L: For every action there's an equal and oposite reaction. Here consideration should be made between the mass of the bullet vs. the mass of the rifle+hunter. 
These are laws that are recognized within the scope of "Newtonian Physics" but these laws are very applicable here.


----------



## mr.trooper

Poor Fool.you OBVIOUSLY dont know what yoru talking about. Your probably shooting a .416 Rigby, and you just THINK its a .243.

All us Internet-Jockies KNOW tat dhe .243 Is Da SuXoRs!!!11111111

it only be good for Da squirels, and only under 30 feet!!!!!!!111111111111

People Used to kill Bison With Black-powder loads and soft lead bullets with no problem, But to use a Modern Hi-powered rifle like a .243 and Quality premium bullets of the proper weight on smaller game like a deer is INSAINE!!!!!!!!!!111111111


----------



## huntin1

Slinger70 said:


> Potential energy is the cartridge resting in the rifle.
> Kinetic energy is the stored energy of the projectile impacting the object struck. Basically this is the transfer of energy. Since, physically, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it went somewhere as the bullet came to rest. So there is without a doubt an amount of energy being released on/absorbed by the deer. Now there may be an argument that the differences between bullets can be deemed as negligible, but that isn't what a ballistics block will show you.
> In utilizing Newton's second law a larger mass will net a greater force.
> After striking the target, then you have to deal with determining elastic and/or inelastic collision formulas.
> N1L: If no net force acts on a body then the body's velocity cannot change. Not very applicable here
> N2L: F=ma Acceleration here being gravity, m being mass
> N3L: For every action there's an equal and oposite reaction. Here consideration should be made between the mass of the bullet vs. the mass of the rifle+hunter.
> These are laws that are recognized within the scope of "Newtonian Physics" but these laws are very applicable here.


Boy, someone's talking down to the masses. :roll:

huntin1


----------



## headhunter

its just not a very good one. :lol:


----------



## Greenhunter

Bottom line is the .243 Win will consistently and reliably take deer out to 250-300 yards as long as you do your part with shot placement. It will even take Elk when you put the pill in the boiler room.

I like the .243 and .25's as potent, accurate, and soft recoiling arms.

nuff said.


----------



## headhunter

Bottom line is a .22 LR will take game even Elk if all circumstances are "Perfect" out to a Mile and a Half.....But I still won't use one to do any serious big game killing....especially if there is a big buck on the line. Nuffsaid. 8)


----------



## kotupod

The bullet does actually hit the animal at an equal force that it hits your arm, although some energy may be lost over distances. However, the energy that it his the animal is focused on one point, rather than spread out like what is felt from recoil. You can stand on a whole bunch of nails nailed into a board without penetrating your skin, but if you stand on one nail it will go through your foot. But lol, it doesn't really matter anyways, it kills the deer either way! :roll: And a .234 is plenty enough to kill deer, i've used it for years now and killed out to 200 yards. All one shot kills. :lol:


----------



## Greenhunter

headhunter said:


> Bottom line is a .22 LR will take game even Elk if all circumstances are "Perfect" out to a Mile and a Half.....But I still won't use one to do any serious big game killing....especially if there is a big buck on the line. Nuffsaid. 8)


Headhunter this thread is about the .243 Win, not the .22LR. I have never heard of a .22LR taking an Elk out to 1 1/2 miles, nor at 25 yards. I have no clue why you even bother to waste our time with such BS?


----------



## littlegreenman87

Well boys... I shoot a .308 myself... And it doesn't have any trouble killing deer... But my brother and my father both use a .243 most of the time.. I am amazed at the damage a .243 will do to whitetail-sized game with handloads shooting an 85gr bullet.. I have seen more deer killed faster and with seemingly more shock when shot by a .243 than with a .308.... I also have an uncle who has shot deer most of his life using only a 22-250, which is also an exellent whitetail round.. The last few years he has been shooting a .300 win and it seems to go right through some of the deer without ever expanding.. 
therefore i think the problem is not in the .243 caliber... but in the .300 wielding psychos who seem only to want to mutilate animals rather than kill them... don't even start.... all calibers have a place.. just don't blame others for using their choice.


----------



## kase

uh oh...you didn't say that a 22-250 is a good deer round did you????  (i completely agree with you littlegreenman, but that's gonna start another "discussion") personally, i think this thread should've been under the shooting forum instead of the deer hunting forum. it just got a little too scientific.......i wanna talk about deer behavior, deer hunting, killing deer, etc.....discussing weapons of choice is alright, but when you mention one or more scientific theory, it needs to go somewhere else.

bottom line...a .243 will kill a deer and will do it efficiently. i think that has been proven over a whole bunch of hunting seasons...besides, real men do it with a bow anyway :wink:

kase


----------



## Slinger70

mr.trooper are you over age 18?


----------



## Remington 7400

I have killed 6 deer with the .243, 4 went straight down, 1 went about 20 yards, the other went about 30 yards.

Bottom line, the .243 will kill deer, granted I'd rather have my .30-06, but the .243 will do its part if you do yours.

Mr. Trooper:

The .243 is only good on squirrels out to 30 yards?
I hope that was a joke, because if it wasen't YOU WERE WRONG! The .243 is a solid 500 varmint gun, and in my opinion a decent 200 yard deer rifle. It was after all based on the .308 which was based on the .30-06 which is the best cartridge in the world!

Also a .243 would do more terminal damage to a deer than a .416 would, granted the .416 is shooting a bigger bullet offering more knock down, but the bullets designed for the .416 would not expand on deer size game, therefore you would be shooting Bambi with a FMJ.


----------



## Plainsman

Remington 7400

Your correct about the 416. Many people who talk about being over gunned don't realize the problems with the bullet construction of these large calibers. Often their velocity doesn't offer as much shock value as a lesser caliber. It offers it, but it isn't utilized by hitting a small target like a deer, it comes into it's own on Cape Buffalo and such. I once seen a deer run 400 yards after a hit with a 505 Gibs through the boiler room. In fact the heavy bullets in 30 caliber do less damage (to the meat you want to eat) than the small bullets in 270 or 7MM. Although I shoot a 300 mag that I like very much a 180 gr out of it does less damage than a 150 gr out of a 30-06.

Yup, Mr. Trooper was joking. I like his sense of humor.


----------



## PAwoodsman

I am only in freshman college physics, and I do not throughly understand everything you fellas are talking about. I do understand this, I have shot many deer with my .243 and if I would recommend the caliber to anyone. As long as you have decent shot placement, you can drop a deer in its tracks easily, and ruin little meat also.

:sniper: happy hunting


----------



## Cleankill47

All right, here goes....

First off, bullets, and arrows kill differently from each other, but they both do the job well.

I will start with arrows, since they are the easiest to explain physics-wise:

Arrows kill by hemmoraging. Period. Well, actually, on medium to large game they kill by hemmorage, on smaller game, shock is a factor.

The amount of force required for your arrows depends on your game. you wouldn't use the same 50-pound draw weight on Alaskan Moose that you use for Key deer in Florida. (Key deer average about 60-90 pounds full-grown) You need more energy, so that your shot can successfully penetrate the hide, muscle, and bones (such as ribs) between the point of impact and the vitals, _and_ the broadhead must maintain it's edge until after it passes through the vital area, cutting arteries, veins, lungs, and hopefully the heart, causing the animal to die from blood loss.

Bullets are more complicated. I personally don't bother with theories, I just learn the boundaries of my guns through ballistics, test them myself for what _I_ will be using them for, and that's the end of it.

One proven aspect of the bullet is this: It kills by a combination of shock and hemmoraging, depending on the shot placement, and the size and type of projectile. .243, in particular, is an exceptional example of this rule. The .243 was introduced with 55-grain bullets, I believe, and later made 60- and 80-grains available. These cartridges were designed for varmints (coyotes, prarie dogs, ground squirrels, etc.), and therefore were made to fragment on impact to deliver the maximum amount of energy to the target in the least amount of time. Fragmenting bullets can't be used on larger game because of the extra time needed to reach the vital area. For this reason, the .243 is now available with 100- to 180- grain loads, preferably having bonded cores to expand and cause tissue damage without coming apart.

In my views, the best place to shoot a deer with any cartridge is the shoulder blade(scapula), since it houses major arteries and even the nerves that allow function of the heart and lungs. Also, even if you hit high, you it the spine. Low, the heart, and back, the liver or lungs, so it's a good all-around shot. The deer are only able to travel an average distance of about 17-30 yards (if they don't drop on the spot), due to nerve damage. The best bullet to use for this shot is a solid or bonded type bullet, since the goal is only to shatter the scapula, and possibly the opposite one as well. I highly recommend this shot, since deer most often jump, then drop in their tracks after being hit. The shoulder blade being shattered causes a nerve/shock overload to the brain, causing almost instant death.

However, the most poular shot still remains the heart/lung shot, for the simple reason that shots in this area kill, and it is just common knowledge. For this shot, it is more important to use a bullet that expands more, with a mushroom effect to cause tissue damage.

Those of you whose first (maybe only) experience with a .243 ended with a bad shot or memory probably just need a better match of gun to load, as well as shot placement.


----------



## Plainsman

> The .243 was introduced with 55-grain bullets


 No the .243 was introduced in 1955 with 80 grain bullets and 100 grain followed shortly. Remington goofed with rifling twist in the 6mm Remington. It was to slow and would not stabilize 100 grain bullets. When people started using these calibers for deer the 6mm quickly faded. Even though Remington has corrected this the 6mm never recovered from it's reputation of inaccuracy.

The 55 grain bullets are relatively new. As a matter of fact the newest of the bullets offered in this caliber.



> For this reason, the .243 is now available with 100- to 180- grain loads


There are no 180 grain bullets available for a .243. If they had them they would look more like arrows than bullets. The heaviest I know of is 105 grain. Barnes is always known for heavy bullets and may have some heavier than the 105 grain.



> the best place to shoot a deer with any cartridge is the shoulder blade


Not with small for animal caliber. The .243 is a good deer rifle, but I wouldn't take on bone my side of the vital organs.

Sorry to disagree so much, but I didn't want someone purchasing this caliber without knowing it's limitations.


----------



## killadoe

To whoever wants to buy a 243, if there arent enough pros and cons on this thread, then we cant help you and you need to just try one yourself. I have one and personally love it. I have shot hogs with mine and the 100 grain bullets I shoot pass through the shoulder blades on each side. Yes a 243 is kinda small but it will do the trick....


----------



## Cleankill47

Thank you, killadoe, for confirming at least that aspect of my post.

Plainsman: With the right bullet, bone is not a problem at all. There was a study done for the particular shot I was talking about, performed by wildlife biologist Charles Ruth and members of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.

The study, released in 1999, involved 493 kills during one hunting season. The average distance for killing shots was 127 yards. Of all the kills, 51 percent of the deer dropped when shot. Thirty-four percent of those were killed with shoulder-blade shots; and the remaining instant kills were made with neck, spine, and head shots.

-Correction-: The average distance traveled by scapula-hit deer was only 3 yards, and the deer generally didn't leave the hunter's sight.


----------



## Plainsman

cleankill47

I keep forgetting the size of the deer where you are from. In the northern states and Canada you wouldn't want to aim for bone with anything but a Barnes X bullet. Even then, kiss the meat goodby in that area.

I have shot about 15 deer with a 243. I never did loose any, but a couple were sure determined to head for parts unknown. Deer are highly variable critters. One will drop at the shot with a 22/250 through the chest, and another will run with a 308 right behind the shoulder.

I agree the 243 is a good caliber, and perhaps even more so with small deer.


----------



## elderberry99

I got my .243 due to a back injury and had to reduce the felt recoil. I use the Remington Core-Lokt PSP 100 grain rounds in my rifle and it does a very nice job of one shot-one kill.
To each his own!!


----------



## killadoe

Its a great deer gun, I have one. I wish i new what kinda bullets whackmaster was shooting though. Those are some massive holes...


----------



## Cleankill47

At 250 yards, if he was using any kind of solid or bonded bullet, it may very well have been tumbling, which will do the kind of damage in the picture if impact takes place with the side of the bullet. Barnes X-Bullets do that kind of damage normally at the right velocities.

:sniper:


----------



## killadoe

by the way, in the first pic, is that a hole in the deers neck as well. I am just curious as to why you would have to shhot it in the neck and shoulder with those types of bullets? Whackmaster tell us what happend.


----------



## Cleankill47

There are a few things that could have happened: First, because of the distance involved in the shot compared to the size and grain of the bullet, penetration was limited due to impact, and the bullet (especially if it entered tumbling) wasn't able to deliver the full potential of its energy to the target area (the vitals), instead dumping it's payload into the muscular area of the shoulder and the shock being absorbed by the muscle. (Plainsman, the second shot (in the neck) was taken with a .223, most likely a copper jacketed hollow point)

Oh, and Plainsman, a hematoma is under the skin, and you have to have no fur on it to see that. It is also, of course, caused by a shock to the body over bone, not muscle, causing blood to well up under the skin. (Hasim Rahman got a hematoma over his right eye in his fight with Evander Holyfield) And if you look closely, the area _is_ swollen, indicating that the heart was indeed beating long enough to cause semi-subdermal hemmoraging around the area of impact. Plus, the picture doesn't say if that is the exit wound; at 205 yards, that may very well be the entrance wound of a tumbling bullet. Frozen carcasses would also partially fragment on entry, not tear, as is shown in the picture.

The second hole, the one in the neck, is much less swollen due to the lack of blood in the circulatory system, as well as the damage of nerves in the area affecting the swelling process.

Also, a 405 grain bullet, traveling at 2550 fps (most likely either a 45-70 Government or a 458 Winchester Magnum) would be traveling about 1500 feet per second too fast to deliver their energy and expand on a medium-sized target such as deer. This is why police don't use armor-piercing bullets on some whacko with a t-shirt on, they use something like what you can find on www.extremeshockusa.com, to hit with the most energy in the least amount of time.

Anatomy, forensics, dynamics, and ballistics, when learned well, can answer almost all questions pertaining to hunting...

:sniper:


----------



## huntin1

Cleankill47 said:


> This is why police don't use armor-piercing bullets on some whacko with a t-shirt on, they use something like what you can find on www.extremeshockusa.com, to hit with the most energy in the least amount of time.
> 
> Anatomy, forensics, dynamics, and ballistics, when learned well, can answer almost all questions pertaining to hunting...
> 
> :sniper:


Actually, most departments are using Fed. GMM or Black Hills Match ammo with either the 168 or 175 grain Sierra Matchking in .308. We don't use armor piercing bullets against soft targets because of the danger of over-penetration. In other words, we want to take out the whacko, not him and some grandmother three houses away. In some cases we use the new Hornady Tap ammo, which does a real good job of penetrating glass and staying on target, intact, the SMK performs rather poorly against glass barriers, we have had some good results using premium soft point hunting bullets against glass as well.

:sniper:

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

> Oh, and Plainsman, a hematoma is under the skin, and you have to have no fur on it to see that


You know my veterinarian profs at NDSU said the same thing, but I didn't know if I could believe them. I'm sure glad you verified that.



> heart was indeed beating long enough to cause semi-subdermal hemmoraging around the area of impact.


You will have to give me a definition of semi-sub dermal. I am familiar with ectodermal, endodermal, mesoderm, epidermal, intradermal, sub dermal, but not semisubdermal. Is that something like pseudocutaneous?



> (Plainsman, the second shot (in the neck) was taken with a .223, most likely a copper jacketed hollow point)


You know I have shot over 100 deer, and I have stood beside hunt1, longshot, many relatives and friends and watched five times that many go down. Many deer, calibers, and bullets over a 50 year time period and I would never make a wild guess as to the caliber those deer were shot with much less the bullet. That is bs over the top of my chest waders. I will take whackmaster at his word for it being a 243, but that is one heck of a wound area for such a small caliber.

The only way you could know that was a 223 on the neck shot is if you are whackmaster who can't let his crazy theories go.

I guess I don't respond well to condescension. I know many young people, and older people too, just starting, come on here for information. It is a pleasure to speak with those people. I hope they can sort good information from bs. As an example somewhere I read on here about small fast bullets going so fast that they zip through deer without expanding. This doesn't happen period. I know some people will hear things from people who they have complete trust in, then repeat it not realizing that it is incorrect. Anyway, I think it is time for another picture of a dead horse being beaten.


----------



## huntin1

Plainsman said:


> Anyway, I think it is time for another picture of a dead horse being beaten.


Methinks you are correct. dd:

Here ya go:









:sniper:

:beer:

huntin1


----------



## Invector

I'd just like to say that if a .243 can do that to a deer then what would a .300 do to a deer...man that must make one hell of a mess when shooting. I bet $$$$$ that it would cut the deer in half. Oh um hm...funny thing is I did shoot a deer with a .300 and it did little damage due to the type of bullet (elk load 180 silver tip). Hm so it makes me think that a .243 is such a super gun that all of us that are shooting deer should drop down lick our :jammin: and buy a .243. Just one question for the author of this thread, did gravil tast good with the meat or did the ford hood emblum tast better... :rollin: uke:
And what are you on and how can I get some?

Next I would like to address this issue of bullets, energy, physics, psycoology (study of psyco people ), and hide polishing. From what I have read (as boring and idiodic as it is) some of you, ok one of you, think that such things are imposible. First I will discuss physics.

Physics...Dat daar Newton guy hat thumb gud deas for hs time...

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. Now you may wonder what that means, well simple an object will keep moving. Simple enough, but we have this thing called gravity, you cannot argue with that. If you do not beleave in gravity then why are we all not falling off into the sky? If you were to shoot a gun in space the bullet would travel at that speed untill another force effects its pattern. On earth things travel untill gravity overcomes its force that it gives off and stopes it. A gun shoots it flyes till its force is overcome by the friction given off by gravity (oh looks like I made my own dead horse).

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector. This means that if a mass M is moving A then it has force F. The greater the speed and the greater the mass the more force it has. This is easily seen in rifles. Whey does a .300 hit harder then a .222? Simple, the mass of the bullet of the .300 is greater then that of the .222, the speed of the .300 is greater then that of a .222 thus it has more force. What is force you say? Easy to answer too. The force is what the bullet has in this case kinetic energy. This energy is the energy of a moving object. An object at rest has potential energy. When a bullet hits it transfers its energy to what it hits. In this case we will say a deer. The deer has potential energy but needs to be hit by kinetic energy...when this happens, most times form a bullet, the tissue of a deer goes form potential to kinetic. The faster and greater mass the bullet is going the greater the impact and the greater the energy is transfered.

The third law we will not get into right now cause it hits on recoil and thats not what this post is about.

Simply put,the energy of a bullet is in ft/lbs. Just think of it as the amount of force at impact.

Lastly HIDE POLISHING? You got to be kidding me. A bullet dont spinn on a hide if it cannot go through. It transfers its energy to the deers skin...if the bullet does not go though then it simply falls off. Its like getting hit by a fist rock foot car amlost anything. A bullet must beable to break the skin to do damage, the greater the force the better damage. DID a .243 do that to that deer...only if he was shooting it with some type of explosive (right plainsman) 
:splat: :bop:

The trueth would be an intresting story to see how the deer was obtained IMHO!!! :huh: :huh:


----------



## headhunter

Jibberish.

The 234 is a deer gun, its just way down at the bottom of the totem pole.


----------



## Azian

If it will put a hole in a deer's heart and or both lungs then I'm sure it can kill the dang thing. I've never seen one live after that happens.


----------



## Slinger70

Psycoology?


----------



## Cleankill47

Invector,

1- Your first paragraph of your physics explanation expresses nothing related to the subject at hand. (Shooting a gun in space, the only thing that could interact with it besides any solid mass is gravity, not necessarily Earth's) Furthermore, gravity does not produce friction, the air does.

2- Your disussion of force using vectors is inherently inaccurate, due to the fact that a vector, when used mathematically, is specifically described as "A quantity that has magnitude and direction and that is usually represented by part of a straight line with the given direction and with a length representing the magnitude." This cannot be used in any discussion of ballistics due to the fact that gravity causes projectiles to arc, thereby rendering your entire paragraph void. 
Add on to that your phrasing in that the deer, having potential energy, must be hit by the kinetic energy of the bullet; Wow.

Using the same object as a reference: A bullet, when at rest in your rifle's chamber, has potential energy. When fired, most of the potential energy is transferred into kinetic energy. NEVER will ALL of the potential energy be used as kinetic energy, because friction in the bore, air resistance, heat created from ignition and expansion of gases, the _changing_ of powder _to_ gases, and temperature variances all detract from the energy of the projectile. The less energy spent on those things, the more is left over for use in the impact, delivering maximum killing power for the task at hand.

3- If a bullet does not have enough energy to penetrate at impact, then it usually doesn't just "fall off", it delivers the remainder of it's energy, usually causing a split in the skin- maybe lodging directly beneath in some muscle tissue.

Plainsman, I used semi-subdermal because it is a large entry wound, so it can't really be subdermal, but it sure isn't superficial, either.

I apologize for my misreading of the posts. I thought when I was typing that reply that Ranger_Compact was .243 whackmaster telling what the second shot in the neck was.

It may have been my post in the small game forum about the zipping of a projectile right through a game animal, and with pellets, this is quite common.

Condescension was not intended, nor is it intended in this post toward anyone, including Invector. If someone on here should know different than what I say, please, say so that I may correct my way of thinking to include that which you will so graciously impart to me. "Whew!" (No sarcasm intended)

Huntin1, I know that the reason you don't use armor-piercing bullets is due to over-penetration, that's why I gave the link. It was supposed to be read and understood why I posted it before a response was made. (Sorry, I guess I should've explained it more clearly!) The bullets made by Extreme Shock, namely the Air Freedom Round, are specifically designed _not_ to overpenetrate, as they are intended for use onboard aircraft where a danger of explosive decompression exists. The ammunition, at the point of impact, uses a deflector plate inside the bullet to direct the shrapnel at a 90 degree angle from the direction of impact, creating a massive entry wound channel while using as much of the energy as possible at the point of entry. Example:









The above image is the result in ballistic clay of a reduced velocity SRT round, made by Extreme Shock.

Huntin1, I recommended this ammunition to a friend who used to be an army Ranger, and _he_ had never heard of it. I highly recommend that you pick up a five-pack 'sample' of Fang Face rounds for your sidearm and give it a try on something like a raw chicken (don't ask, my uncle is thorough when it comes to testing effectiveness on real-life consistency; no ballistics gel for this guy)

I just like to make sure that everything is right, and that all (or at least most of) my information is correct. I hope to have finally cleared up this 'energy' debate, it's getting kind of old.

Lastly, the .243 is a great midsize game gun, and bigger game is within reach if you are an excellent shot. That's what this thread started with, and hopefully, that's how it will end... :beer:


----------



## huntin1

Cleankill47,

The link you posted previously does not work for me. I get a message saying that the webpage does not exist.

Expolsive decompression as a result of a bullet hole from the inside is a myth, does not happen. http://www.gadgetopia.com/post/2606

While the ammo that you are talking about may work in some cases, it has been tested and is impractical here and in any northern climate during many months of the year due to the wearing of multiple layers of heavy clothing.

But this is getting way off topic and this horse has literally been beat to death.

huntin1


----------



## Cleankill47

Huntin1, I see your point in the penetration issue. As for the link, go up to your browser, and erase the comma and slash at the end. I guess the web is picky about proper grammar for a link...

The .243 is a great deer gun, that's what the post was about, and it's the truth for some of us, and not for others. Such is life. Good hunting. :sniper:


----------



## Plainsman

Cleankill47

Thanks for the polite response, seriously. My concern initially (for example) was the inaccuracy of the 180 grain bullet for the 243. This is no big deal to me, but I just didn't want someone who had saved money for a year to run out and buy a 243 thinking he could shoot 180 grain bullets in it. I always ask myself, is someone going to go out and buy something they are dissatisfied with because they followed my recommendations. I hope people will read a few dozen posts after mine. I would be happy if they are, but feel bad if I caused them to make a poor decision.

I am a bit of a nit picker when it comes to firearms and ballistics. I hope that doesn't make me a pain in the keaster. I don't point out mistakes to embarrass others, I do it so the person looking to purchase has the correct information. Some is factual, some is my opinion. My opinion isn't any better than anyone else, but facts remain facts.



> The .243 is a great deer gun, that's what the post was about, and it's the truth *for some of us, and not for others*. Such is life. Good hunting.


I completely agree


----------



## Cleankill47

Plainsman, I completely understand your concern for my informational error, however, I do hope that anyone reading these forums doesn't base their next firearms purchase on any one thread, post, or comment, because for most people, that is a serious mistake.

Huntin1, _my_ thoughts towards decompression onboard an aircraft were pertaining to the fact that, while the people may not get sucked out, most of the oxygen in the cabin might, and that is wholly an undesirable scenario. Again, sorry for the lack of clarity.


----------



## Ranger_Compact

This thread is ridiculously long, why do you care about all these specifics?! :huh:

I use a .243 for deer hunting, I dropped the buck in my picture with one.

Why bother with stats, when many people have used .243s successfully in hunting deer? 
Get over yourselves, and use whatever weapon pleases you... 

I'm not going to rant about why .243s are perfectly fine rifles, I leave you with this:


----------



## Plainsman

Ranger_Compact said:


> This thread is ridiculously long, why do you care about all these specifics?! :huh:
> 
> I use a .243 for deer hunting, I dropped the buck in my picture with one.
> 
> Why bother with stats, when many people have used .243s successfully in hunting deer?
> Get over yourselves, and use whatever weapon pleases you...
> 
> I'm not going to rant about why .243s are perfectly fine rifles, I leave you with this:


Get over yourselves?????????

I like to talk about ballistics. I realize this turned to more of a ballistics discussion than hunting, sorry about that. Some of us enjoy ballistic debates. I have sat around the campfire with good friends and argued ballistics into the wee hours. We all have our opinions, and experiences that have formed them. You notice cleankill47 and I agree that the 243 is adequate were just debating the pros and cons of it. If he is really into these things, I would expect he enjoys as much as I. Sorry you think so little of us.

As I always say "hang together or hang alone". I rarely duck hunt, but I respect duck hunters as fellow sportsmen, no better or no worse than I . I think people should hunt with what they like, and I nearly always assume towards the positive, at least when it comes to fellow hunters and fisherman.

The likes of us??????????

I wish our first contact wouldn't have been about how disgusting you find us. I don't disrespect 18 year olds, but I hope you can learn to value us old geezers pushing 60. Best Wishes.


----------



## huntin1

Jeez R_C a bit harsh ain't ya.

So what do you have more important to do, talk about this week's boyfriend, or perhaps what's happening on Days of our Lives?

You would think that as a novice you would want to learn as much as you can, at least from some of your other posts that is what I gathered.

Guess I was wrong. I suppose that now that you have turned 18 you know everthing there is to know, silly me.

Hey, if you don't like the extended discussions that us old farts get into just scroll on by. Nobody is twisting your arm to stop in and learn something.

I gotta go soak my dentures now.

Have a nice evening.

huntin1


----------



## zogman

Huntin 1

Just call me your Ditto Head :withstupid: I couldn't of said it better myself.

R_C

Huntin 1, Plainsmen, and some of the rest of us Seniors have shot more centerfire rounds in one year than you will shot in the balance of your life. And out of more different calibers than are in the rifle rack at Scheels.

I got more but don't want the ciber police after me :sniper:

Stick with your favorite school's name or country song. You know that gigglie teenbopper junior high stuff oke: :toofunny: :rollin:


----------



## Burly1

....And she even admitted to listening to Eminem! I wish I could remember what it was like to be eighteen and know it all. What was this thread about anyway? 243? Two hundred forty three what? :wink: Burl


----------



## Ranger_Compact

Whoa! Didn't mean to step on your toes, hot heads. This week's boyfriend??? Where did that come from? My boyfriend and I have been together for 2 1/2 years now, I don't think that qualifies as a week...:roll: Do you have a problem with Days of Our Lives? I sure don't, and I also don't know where the assumtion that I watch Days came from! I am truly sorry, that I didn't realize how interesting your discussions on ballistics were, it seemed more like arguing to me, but what do I know?! :huh: I'm just a novice... boofreakinghoo. This thread started out as a topic about a .243 being a deer gun, so I guess I just assumed it stayed that way-but I was wrong. Well, I better get back to making my "boyfriend of the week's" Valentine's Day present-while I catch up on Days of Our Lives in my Soap Opera magazine. And about the "teenbopper junior high stuff"...ummm...I'm pretty sure there are guys your age commenting on there too...~Toodles~


----------

