Author Topic: 1000 foot pounds  (Read 777 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Questor

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7075
1000 foot pounds
« on: August 25, 2003, 07:47:20 AM »
I routinely read that 1000 foot pounds is a practical minimum amount of energy for deer hunting.  If that's true, how come there are so many exceptions?  Is this yet another case of some gunwriter pulling a number out of the air and having it repeated by other gunwriters over the years?  

Why does energy matter at all? I would think that any method of punching a hole in the vitals, regardless of how much energy is imparted, would do the job.
Safety first

Offline Blackhawk44

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 981
1000 foot pounds
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2003, 12:26:13 PM »
1000FP?  Who knows?  Does energy matter?  Not necessarily, or no one or no thing would have ever died from an arrow.  More correctly, momentum does matter.  A projectile must have enough momentum to penetrate to the proper organs to cause enough damage to cease function within a reasonably short time period.  Take 45 bullets, one of 200gr and another of 400gr, both fired at 1000fps.  At short range, both are deadly.  To embellish a little, at 100 yards, you almost stop the 200gr with a catchers mitt, but with the 400gr you are still in serious danger behind a heavy wooden door, simply because the 400gr RETAINS its momentum better.   Then you confuse things more with the construction of the bullet.  At the same weight and velocity, the soft point and the full metal jacket have the same enery, but we all know which would normally be the most destructive.  Energy, pre se, is an unreliable indicator of cartridge performance.

Offline Duffy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 660
1000 foot pounds
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2003, 08:28:19 PM »
Washington state used to give you a recomended min energy for handgun hunting. It used to be 500 ftlb for deer and smaller critters and 750 for Elk, Bear ect. I sort of liked the idea because it gave you a minimum to shoot for or a way to figure max range of a certain caliber. Now it's just anything .243 and larger which includes 9mm ect. They do give some recomendations against using small calibers but you know how that goes.........

I do belive my 320g 44 exceeds the minimum. :)

Offline Hcliff

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 233
1000 foot pounds
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2003, 11:58:14 AM »
I think this is a number the DNR come up with too.  In wisconsin it was 1000lb or 357, 41, or 44 magnum.  Well the 357 doesn't make that number.  (the Wis DNR changed it now not sure how they have it worded)  

I think the thought process it that they want hunting guns out there not 38 snub nose like someone would go and do.

There are enough crazy people out there to try without some kind of yardstick.  I think the 1000lb keeps alot of the autloaders out of the mix and that is some of thinking

Hcliff