Why 1000 ft lbs of energy for a deer?

[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

[puma guy]

A well placed shot, preferably heart and lungs, with a pistol cartridge (rifle or handgun) would put a deer down. How far they would travel is a legitimate issue. We had a hunter that shot a buck right outside his stand with a .357 Model 27 Smith and he couldn't find it. We found it 4 days later at the other end of the property while looking for another deer. The bullet entry indicated a lung shot. To be fair, I once shot a buck with my .270 at 80 yards that left a blood trail a foot wide from the spot I hit him and he ran ran 40 yards to a fence, jumped it and another 40 yards into a clump of cedars on the neighboring property. The trail looked like someone used a paint roller with red paint the entire distance. I received permission to retrieve it and when I cleaned him he had no heart. The only part of it left intact was the very bottom tip, a piece that was about a half inch in diameter. No bigger than the tip of my little finger. Running on adrenaline!
It goes without saying that hunters of yesteryear were successful with black powder weapons. I'd venture that they were expert trackers. Most of the deer I have shot dropped like a rock on the spot, the ones that ran didn't go far i.e. a matter of a few yards. I did have one hit a little far back that traveled quite some distance (couple of hundred yards) , but I found him. He bled out internally and the meat on his hind quarters looked like veal. I have never lost a deer and hopefully I will have continued success that modern high powered cartridges offer if I make a well placed shot. I don't think the deer have got any tougher. They've always been tough, amazing animals.

[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

[puma guy]

Maybe some others will weigh in.

[anygunanywhere]

Shot placement is the key to deer dropping where they stand. Heart and lung shots rarely result in drop and die. Central nervous system hits bring deer down hard.

My go to deer rifle for 40 years was a Mossberg in 7MM Remington Mag. Every deer I hit dropped in its tracks except one. The one exception was when I had a faulty scope with trajectory compensator. I hit that one in the hindquarter and it ran off and died. Had to track it but I did find it. Season before last I had to sideline my old 7MM because of a scope problem. I hit the deer in the neck when I aimed at the upper shoulder. My next in line rifle is a Savage in 300 Winchester Short Magnum. I dropped two does, both neck shots at the base of the head. Both dropped where they stood.

My choice of calibers may seem big, but I like having a hunting cartridge and rifle that I can use for really big animals if I need to. Shot placement and confidence in your equipment will minimize meat loss.

A .243 will drop most Texas deer with well placed shots, but really, go big and increase your odds. Google where to shoot deer for most effective kills.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[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

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 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.

Well, Elmer Keith killed a mule deer at 600 yards with his Model 29 Smith and Wesson. so there!

[Crash]

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

[puma guy]

Crash,
I think bullet placement is key. A .22 lr in the ear of a moose will drop it. Some states require use of shotguns only for deer hunting others prohibit any cartridge that is not straight walled; M1 carbine to 45/70 and .444 Marlin, etc. Plenty of power there with limited range compared to high powered necked down cartridges. I shoot for the shoulder which shatters the bone and obliterates the heart and lungs usually. I lose a little meat there, but it's effective. I never heard any complaints from the hundreds of hunters that bought a Marlin 336 .30-30 from me, but I saw a post somewhere that stated that cartridge has been proven under powered for deer. I didn't bother reading it. If it kills a deer with a well placed shot with a good designed bullet I'd say it's an acceptable cartridge. Like some one said once a knitting needle to the chest is a better killing instrument than a blunt hammer.