This should spark a good debate. Which formula do you think is best for deciding if a certain cartridge is adequate for a certain animal. The Muzzle Energy formula is weighted greatly towards velocity, and the Taylor KO formula is based more towards bullet weight and caliber.
Townsen Whelen fifty years ago suggested 1,000 ft-lbs of energy for deer, and 2,000 for elk. Taylor, who had hundreds of dangerous game kills in Africa doesn't even use ft-lbs. in his formula. Who's is better?
Perhaps the muzzle energy figures would be appropriate for thin skinned game like deer, while the TKO formula should be reserved for dangerous game cartridges.
I really don't place much faith in paper ballistics, they are fun to look at though.
__________________
NRA Life Member
God Bless the United States Military
Great question there Dab. I am not sure you are gonna get a suitable answer however. When Taylor developed his theory back in the over 50 years ago, it was embraced by the large bore - slower bullet followers like Elmer Keith. He and Jack O'Connor, who was a great proponent of faster lighter bullets like the .270, never missed a chance to butt heads. They really didn't care for each other. Keith was particularly outspoken on the issue. When I first became interested in reading about this stuff ,(still do) I , like most people, saw some merit in both arguments. I did erroneously think that eventually the engineers and scientific minded folks who are so heavily involved in bullets and bullet construction would settle this dispute once and for all. However, quite the opposite has occurred. As bullet construction has changed so much in the last 20 years, the arguments have taken on even more sophisticated mathamatical formulas to be argued and the result is, that we are now probably further away from any real concesus than we were in the 70's. To further ascerbate things, the general thinking among experienced shooters is that somewhat smaller calibers can now be used effectively where they may have been frowned on 25 years ago. There is truth in that. The real rub will always be that there are many people who have had success from both camps and therefore will remain one hundred percent convinced that the other side is nuts. But, it is one fun debate.
Velocity,expansion,and weight retension for penetration, are the combination that work.We now have this combination in the bonded bullets that triple their diammeter and yet retain 90% of their weight.At one time velocity meant rapid weight loss or lack of expansion.At that time slower,heavier bullets worked well because velocity meant either minimal expansion and low energy release or rapid expansion and weight loss leading to poor penetration.Still,varmint bullets don't work well on deer because of their rapid expansion.Bullets with good expansion and penetration on deer don't work well on larger game like elk because they don't penetrate deep enough,and bullets that can penetrate the greater resistance of elk/moose don't work good on deer because of lack of expansion leading to poor energy release.I believe Muzzle energy is next to useless in figuring terminal ballistics.Type of bullet and penetration are what counts.Taylors standards stand the test,even today with the better bullets.Bullets should be chosen for the game you are hunting and where you will place the bullet.The bullets I love for a double lung shot aren't adequate for a heavy bone shot and the bone smashing bullets aren't good for double lung shots because of lack of expansion in areas of less resistance.You need to figure the resistance the bullet will encounter and match the bullet that expands well,to release energy,and retains weight to penetrate deeply in the game you arehunting and where you will place the shot. sam.
Another way to work it is to figure your method of bullit balistic formula from the back to the front. And that means start with the critters body cavity, structure, density and weight first. Then the decision of fast and platt!(KE) or heavy, slow and forever go(Penetrasion, minimal expansion, momentun)(Taylor formula), will fall into place.
ok....lemme get this right! i need a bullet, that will triple its size, must retain 70% of its wieght , and has to expend 99% of its energy before exiting out?your makin this very difficult :P
"You need to figure the resistance the bullet will encounter and match the bullet that expands well,to release energy,and retains weight to penetrate deeply in the game you arehunting and where you will place the shot. sam."
This pretty much sums it up,, I will add, in reality you need both momentum and energy. Look at it as energy expands the bullet, weight/momentum makes it penetrate. But then you have to figure in diameter as well. If you say a 25 cal 100 grainer and a 30 cal. 100 grainer. If driven at the same speed they will have equal energy and momentum at the start. The 100 gr. 25 cal with it's higher sectional density will carry the momentum down range better and penetrate far deeper.
Bullet making isn't an exact science, and to a degree an art, but it has gotten complex as the speeds increased over the years.
Then too it should be noted, that Taylor's formula had little to do with momentum. He was trying to quantify a rounds capability in how long an animal would stay down or knocked sensless would be a better description, if a the bullet missed the brain on dangerous game. Although the formula does figure like montemum, but the same can be said for sectional density.
Another way to work it is to figure your method of bullit balistic formula from the back to the front. And that means start with the critters body cavity, structure, density and weight first. Then the decision of fast and platt!(KE) or heavy, slow and forever go(Penetrasion, minimal expansion, momentun)(Taylor formula), will fall into place.
how about good old fashion field testing on live critters, or you could call it terminal performance. forget muzzle energy thats a number by which we compare bullet to bullet performance it has little to do with killing power.case in point a 375 h&h with a 350 grn solid bullet has about 4000 ft.lbs of energy.what will this do to an eastern whitetail that weighs in at a whopping 125 lbs. It will bore a 3/8 inch hole clean through the animal with little or no real damage when compared to a 243 bullet with 1900 ft. lbs that will normally anchor a buck in his tracks.the lesson here is to match the bullet to the game and success is sure to follow. to many people have a severe case of magnumitis.I prefer to do more with less
i like the kinetic energy myself. mostly because its imperical. it mearly tells you how much "work" a bullet can preform befor it stops its forward movement. like others have said, match that knowledge with the right bullet for the job and you have a winner. i have heard and read many negative things about the taylor system, but am not firmiliar enough with it myself to comment either way.
thiis discussion is hair splitting.
several factors that have to be taken in account:
a) paper is patient;
b) anything can be proven by mathematic;
(anone having taken a few semesters of statistics can vouche for this)
c) field conditions differ from theories;
d) Whelen was closer to the mark then many;
e) read E.H Woodcock's book 'Fifty years as hunter and trapper'
to get a broader understanding.
Per Taylor's comments on page 12 of his book, African Rifles and Cartridges, relating to hunting heavy massive-boned dangerous game animals typically shot at close quarters vis-a-vis soft skinned non-dangerous game typically shot at medium to long range I'd recommend that in the first situation to go with Taylor's KO values and in the second situation to go with Whelen's values. Always with the caveat to use a bullet of proper construction for the game that you're hunting.
Aside from Taylor and Whelen, we’ve had the many year writings of Jack O’Conner and Elmer Keith articulating their hunting exploits and favorite cartridges – O’Conner a proponent of smaller caliber/higher velocity and Keith a proponent of larger caliber/lower velocity – and yes both of these terms are somewhat relative as there may only be 100 grains weight and a few hundred foot seconds velocity separating the two.
One thing that many pundits either forget or ignore is that Jack O'Connor killed many large and dangerous game animals, including all of the African Big 5, as well as the heavy and dangerous game of India and North America. He used and wrote very highly of the .375 H&H, .416 Rigby and .450 Watts (equivalent of the .458 Lott), among others, for such use. This scenario according to pundits being the typical venue of Elmer Keith, not Jack O’Conner.
From my prospective perhaps the principal issue facing hunters today is the proper comparison and substitution of mono-metal bullets for proven solid-encapsulated/bonded-core/cup-core bullets. Meaning, is the historical .300+ sectional density for solid-encapsulated/bonded-core/cup-core bullets still required for successful penetration vis-à-vis a slightly lighter mono-metal bullet. As well as what construction of mono-metal bullet is required for successful expansion vis-à-vis bonded-core/cup-core bullets.
Last edited by capoward; 04-21-2009 at 04:49 PM.
Reason: Trying to catch up on thread with single post.
But, it is one fun debate. 
. i have heard and read many negative things about the taylor system, but am not firmiliar enough with it myself to comment either way.
