TexasCHLforum.com

Puma Guy and The Annoyed Man,

And I'll bet that the .44 Magnum has a lot less than 1000 ft lbs of energy at 600 yards. And so my question still stands: is 1000 ft lbs just an arbitrary figure, an educated guess, a rule of thumb, or .....what? Or does the required amount of energy depend on a number of factors, plus the distance to the deer? For instance, I once saw a good-sized whitetail buck (over 200 lbs on the hoof), shot at 250 yards--or at least that was the first shot. He staggered off, stopped about 50 feet from where he was first shot and it took 4 more shots from about 50 feet to drop him. The cartridge was a 22/250, which convinced me never to use that caliber. So, maybe we need to take into consideration the weight/diameter of the bullet, its velocity, the distance to the deer, where the deer was hit, plus several other factors I've probably missed. In the case of the 22-250 mentioned above, the first shot was placed perfectly--right behind the shoulder and about 1/3 to 1/2 the way up the body. If it had been a more appropriate caliber, the first shot would probably have been enough.

I've been told by two professional guides that they have seen more deer lost after being shot with a .243 Winchester than with any other caliber. On the other hand, I have a friend who hunts exclusively with a .243 and never fails to "make meat" with one shot per animal. One of the two professional hunters mentioned above hunts everything from moose to our small central Texas whitetails with a .300 Winchester Magnum. When I asked him why such a big cartridge for such a small deer, he replied, "Better too big than too small."

Sorry about the length of this post, just several thoughts that had been locked up in what I laughingly call a "mind" that just had to be let out....

Crash

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 9:43 pm

Crash wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 7:46 am I understand that 1000 ft lbs of energy is generally accepted as the minimum to put down a deer (not an elk) reliably. If this is true, why is the .44 Magnum, with 600 ft lbs or so, considered OK? Also, I've seen some reliable reports of deer being stopped by the.357 Mag at 50 yds, with less than 500 ft lbs of energy, and even of one being dropped at 25 yds by a 9mm. Finally, back in the bygone day, lots of deer were taken with a Winchester 1873 shooting 44-40 loads with considerably less energy than either the .44 Mag or the .357 Mag.

Have the deer gotten tougher?

What say ye?

Crash

FWIW, American Eagle (Federal) brand .44 Mag with a 240 grain JSP runs about 810 ft-lbs at the muzzle from a 4" test barrel…and it’s not even close to the hottest .44 mag load.

The Annoyed Man,

Yep, I just pulled that 600 ft lbs out of a section of my anatomy where the sun don't shine--sorry. But, my point was, is 1000 ft lbs just an arbitrary number, or a rule of thumb, or what? Since, as I stated before, lots of deer have been killed with considerably fewer ft lbs than 1000, why is that now the generally accepted minimum? Not that I want to shoot them with fewer than 1000 ft lbs, and never have, just curious as to where that number came from.

Crash

puma guy,

I've shot deer with a .308 Winchester, a 7mm-08 Remington, and a 30-30, most hit in the lungs, some hit in the heart, and one hit above the lungs close to the spine. Only two of them dropped where they stood: a fallow doe, hit in the lungs with the 7mm-08 (in and out shot at about 75 yds) fell, got up after a few seconds, staggered away and took a couple more shots to put her down; and a small white tail buck, the one hit above the lungs close to the spine (with a .308 at about 85 yds)--fell where he stood and never moved again. All the others, no matter what I shot them with, ran 50 - 100 yards. Almost all of these were hit in the lungs. Closest shot was about 35yds and the longest one was about 125 yds.

I understand that if you blow out the heart or tear up the lungs badly, they're done for, but I'm just wondering if 1000 ft lbs is a good measure of what's necessary to put them down.

Crash

I understand that 1000 ft lbs of energy is generally accepted as the minimum to put down a deer (not an elk) reliably. If this is true, why is the .44 Magnum, with 600 ft lbs or so, considered OK? Also, I've seen some reliable reports of deer being stopped by the.357 Mag at 50 yds, with less than 500 ft lbs of energy, and even of one being dropped at 25 yds by a 9mm. Finally, back in the bygone day, lots of deer were taken with a Winchester 1873 shooting 44-40 loads with considerably less energy than either the .44 Mag or the .357 Mag.

Have the deer gotten tougher?

What say ye?

Crash