6.5 Grendel versus 6mm ARC for whitetail

[lazyengineer]

I have a couple of viewers that seem to think kinetic energy is the be all to end all of hunting/killing data, regardless of how many times I explain why I don't bother with it, LOL. I provide enough information that they could easily compute it, but that isn't good enough.



I am starting with your 2nd sentence. From the formulas I have looked at, I would say that they were designed to support the perspectives of the writers. Sure, they were biases, but every opinion we have is biased, right? I am not sure writing a formula that derives a number you deep useful for making a selection is necessarily a "bias" issue. The attempts may not have covered everything, but they covered what the particular authors thought was best to explain caliber/bullet/ammo/load choices.

How the bullets behave in the game is HUGE, in my (biased) opinion. I don't think we could put a formula to it, not a single formula, anyways.

The problem with the notion of how bullets perform in game is that it is HUGELY VAGUE. In part, this is due to all of the shooter introduced variables (e.g., shot placement, anatomy knowledge, etc.), bullet induced (e.g., ballistics, how consistently does the bullet perform in a given medium, after hitting bones of different sizes, shapes, densities, etc., and animal/biology induced, and animal induced (e.g., construction and makeup of the animal). Never mind that different types of bullets will perform differently by design and folks will summarily discount certain types of bullets that don't perform in a manner that they like even if they are equally lethal or more lethal.

It is probably just about impossible to come up with a mathematical predictive model/formula that will tell you about lethality across the board, but what said authors were trying to do was to help replace some of the willy nilly logic and biases of hunters based a bit on experience, a bit on the amazing picture on the box, based on what their father/brother/uncle/best buddy shoots, based on what they read in a magazine (those guys are all unbiased experts who write solely for the benefit of sharing their knowledge, right?), etc.

I get a lot of advice from folks on what bullets (and calibers) I should be using. From what I have learned, whatever I am using is wrong based on somebody else's opinion. My favorite are the folks that are trying to help me by telling me what works for them. Mind you, I am hunting hogs and I get notes like, "You really should try X. I killed two deer with it last year and they were DRT, though I had to track one about 60 yards."

This is a pretty stupid endorsement. A sample of 2 is pretty much worthless, though the sample is positive, which is nice. Never mind that they are talking about a different animal and different types of hunting. Never mind that they don't understand that DRT means that the animal dies where shot, not after running 60 yards. However, is this endorsement any better or worse than a Taylor KO value? I don't think it is any better, but I don't think it is any worse. It just doesn't sound as mathematical or scientific.

JASmith mentioned that he didn't know when folks got fascinated with kinetic energy values. I don't know either. It seems velocity and energy are tied up in all the calculations, so they must the pretty important. However, energy seems to be the most simplistic universal concept that even the most ignorant of people can figure out how to calculate and wouldn't it be nice if we just assumed that more is better and now we have a super simple system, only it doesn't work.

Some of my viewers have told me (a couple have told me repeatedly) that I need to be using a caliber that generates more energy. So I ask these folks what energy will do. They tell me that it kills the animal. I ask how it kills the animal and they can't tell me. They will start to talk about hydraulic shock or hydrostatic shock (often because they don't know the difference between the two) but can't tell me what is necessary for said shock to occur, but it involves energy. So where I am going with this is that folks get a concept stuck in their heads like a brain worm that superficially seems to make sense, seems to work, and that they can calculate and BOOM, they have their answer, even if it isn't based on fully useful concepts.

As always - well said. With regards to Kinetic Energy, it's an easy metric for a complex application. I do use and look at it, but with understanding of basically everything you said. An 850 ft-lb TNT imperfect but decent shot into a hog, is going to be my choice over a 1000 ft-lb FMJ for same shot, every time. Mostly because of the excellent body of data you've helped create. (seriously - wow) And they've never let me down. But as an overly technical guy (it's a flaw), I do find it an easy and non-subjective comparative metric when doing ballistics analysis - as overly simplistic as I agree you say it is. For better or worse it's a common metric, and I've had a land-owner require a 200 yard 1000 ft-lb impact metric on me once, to use their land.

And to this thread, I will take a broader 6.5 Grendel bullet over a 6mm ARC bullet pretty much every time, even if they do have the same KE. Even if both are shooting 90 gr TNT's. Because .. yea.