I remember reading a long time ago that 2400 fps was the best velocity for a clean kill. This was in the early days of high velocity, Weatherby, claims for instant kills versus the older slower, heavier bullets. My faded memory cannot remember if it was Elmer Keith, or perhaps Jeff Cooper, or perhaps some other early writer, certainly not Jack O'Conner. According to the proponent,there was something almost mythical about 2400 fps being a perfect velocity versus faster. Perhaps it was one of the known African safari writers, Rurark, Capstick, or ? I have looked through the limited resources I have and google, perhaps terminology wrong. Does anyone here remember this?

__________________
Wherever my mind isn't
Jim

I have not heard this, or if I have I forgot it before you did. I would question any absolute that did not take the type of prey into account. An elephant or cape buffalo is a different beast than a white tail deer. 2400 fps for a 180 gr .30-06 or 2400 fps for a 510 gr .458 Lott?

this concept is so full of errors due to all the wrenches tossed into the gears through the years.

this 2400 thing might work out for an early jacketed flat point to near perfection in some cases.
we have expanding copper solids, such as those from Barnes, that will answer to a totally different dynamic.
I dont see these doing much good so slow

__________________
it just needs more voltage

I would think 2400fps might be around optimum for heavy calibers using a heavy solid on dangerous game. There are just too many types of bullets, calibers, and types of critter to pigeon hole everything together.

__________________
Wayne
Torn & Frayed

Exactly. Early cup and core expanding bullets tended to fail at higher velocities on big game. 2400 fps. or so was the sweet spot. Those early, hot Weatherby's had a reputation for lightning kills with solid lung hits (exploding bullets). Not so good sometimes with raking shots on heavy game.

Bullet technology has changed, and these days solid copper expanding, bonded, interlocks, etc are capable of staying together at much higher velocities.

Larry

The so called magic number I have heard was from Askin's and it was 3,000 fps in a medium rifle.
Having killed a lot of game all you really need is adequate penetration, the velocity to accomplish this varies with caliber, bullet weight and game taken. The exception to this might be a long range rifle aka a bean field gun.

You also need to know the bullet your using is designed for the velocity.

Large game elephant, buffalo a good rule of thumb is 500 grain bullet at at least 2,150 fps, 400 grain 2,300 fps bump the weight up to say 700 grains and you will get adequate penetration at about 2,000 fps and all of these number are at close range 30 to 80 yard shots.

__________________
Len

Thanks for the replies so far guys.
I think the logic expressed so far is great, and as stated reflects the improvement in todays bullet design and construction.
What I am looking for is if anybody might remember the specific reference and its author. Charles Askins is defintely a possibilty. Back in the olden days there was a lot facts, opinions, inuendo, etc. being thrown about on velocity versus big and slow, when velocity/weatherby was coming onto the hunting world.
Maybe some of the other guys who have misplaced facts over time will chime in?

__________________
Wherever my mind isn't
Jim

I am not a ballistics expert but common sense would tell me that there is no one perfect velocity for different bullets. It all depends on the weight of the bullet, how much the bullet expands, velocity, shape, caliber, and what organ if any the bullet hits. To have a perfect velocity without any other specifics - is sort of meaningless to me.

Yes, I remember reading that, but I thought the figure was 2200. My somewhat foggy recollection is that the assertion was that impact velocities in that neighborhood seem to kill more effectively than the bullet's kinetic energy would suggest. I believe (one of the joys of growing old!) I once read an article hypothesizing that at higher velocities more and more of the bullet's energy was converted into temporary, and less effective, wound cavity rather than perminant cavity.

Ed

I use a Nikon Pro Staff scope with a BDC (ballistic drop compensation) reticle on my 30-06. The BDC portion only works if your velocity is either 2700 fps (zero the cross hairs at 100 yards) or 2900 fps (zero the cross hairs at 200 yards). I use a 2700 fps round and the BDC works. I've tried it out to 300 yards. So, with all that being said, I don't think Nikon would spend the effort to develop a BDC reticle for 2700/2900 fps velocities if the 'perfect' velocity is 2200/2400 fps.

__________________
Semper Fi

Any chance that Nikon might be matching the BDC to the most commonly available ammunition velocity?

__________________
Wherever my mind isn't
Jim

Thanks Ed, that is what I remembered, and you stated more precisely!
Now to remember who said it?
I am wondering if possibly Jeff Cooper, as what you stated seems to follow his way of observing, even if through others, and reaching a conclusion.

__________________
Wherever my mind isn't
Jim

That velocity has been posited in several books on African Big Game Rifles. It is referring to the best velocity for deep penetration of large tough animals, using a heavy solid bullet on animals such as elephant, cape buffalo, rhino etc. A velocity between 2000fps and 2500fps was preferred. for good penetration, with 2200 - 2400 being ideal.

__________________
Can my S&W Mdl 10 shoot +P

See if it is in African Rifles & Cartridges by Taylor.
I haven't read the book in over two (three?) decades, but I have a dim spark buried deep in the ashes of my mind.......

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

In the 30-06 the 150gr at around 2400 fps is maximum for
minimum meat damage for hunting deer. Any thing else is over
kill and can really destroy meat if a leg bone or shoulder is struck.

A lot depends on the type and make up of the bullet and the
thickness and hardness of the copper jacket. A little knowledge
of what you toss down range can add more meat on your table.

A old "Krag" 180gr spbt at 2440 fps has as much energy as a 150gr at 2900 fps
with a full head of steam at 300 yards.

Good shooting.

The number for North American big game hunting which I've always seen written is not a minimum velocity, but rather a minimum impact foot pounds of energy.

That number is a rule of thumb, an "ish" number if you will, from the gun writers and hunters I've read through the years. It is 1,000 foot pounds.

Based on your chosen caliber you can determine when the bullet weight/velocity combo drops below 1,000 foot pounds. You then make that distance your maximum ethical range for a shot. "Ethical" would also assume you and your rifle have the ability to accurately hit vitals at that range in field conditions.

So, when impact energy drops below 1,000 foot pounds is the shot rendered ineffective? No. Again, this is a rule of thumb. Some of the modern hunting bullet designs have a wider range of velocities which they are designed to function. Another example is the handgun hunter. He may find his impact energy below the 1,000 mark, however based on his ability to put the bullet through vitals it may still be a viable shot.

Remember the goal is to quickly dispatch the animal. If there is a chance your shot will only wound it, get in closer or wait for a higher percentage shot.

It isn't a perfect number, but it gives you something to work with. If you are dropping below 1,000 foot pounds of impact energy you might think for a moment about your ability to put the shot exactly where it needs to go before you pull the trigger. YMMV...

Edmo

__________________
TRUTH: Don't delete my posts!

A buncha writers who were active hunters in early 20th Cen made basically similar observations.

Within the parameters : * old school lead core , copper jacket , no gimmiks * , they did (and still do ) work just fine at 2000-2400fps , give or take +/- 100fps . The other half of the story that doesn't get always get remembered is a hefty Sectional Density ( aka heavy of cal ), at least .27 , and over .3 even better. This gave controlled expansion and deep penetration, and in particular examples worked much better than : * should on paper * . Examples : The 6.5 Man & ect and 7x57 in Africa with 156 and 175gr respectivly. In US and Can the .30-40/220 and .303/215 were well regarded for elk, moose , big bears.

By mid 20th cen had the initial generation of somewhat more sophisticated game bullets ( Cor Loct , Silvertip , Bronze Point , etc ) , in at least some combinations these were good for up to 2700fps (remember that) .

In modern times , with the various super premimum bullets, the expansion and penetration characterics are engeneered into the bullet design, and don't have an automatic corelationship to vel and sectional density.

Townsend Whelan was an early advocate of 2700fps . His concepts were that pointy bullets at 2700fps would give reasonably flat trajectory out to distances where games most frequently taken. And in such bullets in .25 to .30 cal rifles had managable recoil.

For comparison , Elmer Keith witnessed lots of failures of early light wt bullets on Elk and mule deer , and his whole life prefered bullets that were Big and Heavy. His idea of adaquate penetration was lengthwise thru an elk. In his later years , Keith was also pleased by Big and Heavy AND Fast.

There is one aspect of terminal ballistic performance that I have seldom seen discussed, and that is the energy generated by the rotation of the bullet fired from a rifled barrel.

A bullet fired at 2600 FPS from a barrel having a 12" rate of twist leaves the muzzle at about 156000 RPM. While velocity begins to decrease immediately due to passage through air, and continues to decrease throughout the bullet's flight, the rate of rotation remains relatively unchanged as it is far less affected by air resistance. That bullet fired straight up will eventually come to a stop and fall straight down, still rotating at nearly 156000 RPM.

As anyone who has ever operated power equipment (drill press, buffing wheel, circular saw, etc) knows, the centrifugal force resulting from high speed rotation is considerable. I have personally concluded that this energy plays a significant role in terminal ballistics of rifle bullets, especially those that deform or expand during penetration.

No PhD here, but my mind tends to wander around the edges of some discussions.

I think a medium velocity bullet that would stay together would destroy less meat and pelts.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

As I recall Taylor's book had his theory of KO energy a lot of his data probably came from the English gun and cartridge makers. Peterson's also published a lot of articles on adequate penetration bullet weights and velocities back in the 80's I believe Jack Lott who had a a reasonable amount of big game experience wrote many of them.

First off nothing works well without proper bullet construction and placement.

From my personal experience on some major culls Keith got it right heavy bullets large holes and adequate penetration on raking shots. An exit wound is also a good thing.

Also note that the English double rifle cartridges with 400 to 500 or so grain solids left the muzzle at about 2150 fps.

An example of this on large African game is the unpopularity of the 458 win mag as it lacked penetration on raking shots. Had Winchester made the round on a full length 375 case it would have been perfect. Side on shots on buffalo head shots on elephants it works fine but when something goes wrong and your 2nd best opportunity to stop a wounded animal is a south end shot on a north bound animal adequate penetration is critical.

__________________
Len