For George hill(Mad Ogre)

M

mikthestick

New member
I read your posts on handloaders .com, regarding your formula which you claim has very close results to the published 1 shot stops for handguns. I have not checked out that claim, I believe you. The problem is unless you have to shoot a man its not much good to anyone, or is it. Your formula has inspired me to make it useful for hunting, by turning it into a stopping power formula.

V squared x Bulletgrs x cal all divided by 1000000.
Now before everyone switches of THINK about it.
Assuming a man weighs 200lbs.
A 9mm lugar@1100ft/sec 115gr bullet works out at a 49% chance of a 1 shot stop. If 50% expansion then 49 x 50/2 = 25 + 49 = 74%
An M16 3240ft/sec 56gr bullet = 137% and you can't get better than 100%
An M16@100yds 2877ft/sec =103%
An M16@200yds 2543ft/sec =81%
There should be an 81% chance of a 1 shot stop on a man(weighing 200lbs) at 200yds
What is the biggest man the M16 will stop (100% of the time) at the muzzle and at 200yds. For that you need MY part of OUR formula.
200 x 1.57 to the power 137/100 = 371lbs (first part)
200 divided by 1.57 to the power 100/81 =115lbs (second part)
115lbs is a not to big antelope which I think an M16 could bring down almost every time at 200yds.
I have done the math for big bore elephant guns and it seems to work
 
Interesting. I assume, of course, that a vital organ shot is implied here, so I won't even start that argument, but have you done any field testing to back this up, or is it all theory?
Not trying to poke holes here, but there are a lot more factors that go into something like this than just weight of the target. What is its bone structure, skin thickness, etc.? Does it have a thick protective fat layer like many hogs? Is its average heart rate slow enough, or its potential adrenaline production high enough that it might be able to perform significant action (running a couple hundred yards, for example) even when you have made a perfect vitals shot that turned both lungs into soup?
I would say that your formula could be used to provide a good basis for which caliber might be appropriate, but to say that it can calculate 100% one shot stop probability is a bit of a stretch without A LOT of field testing to back it up.
 
Last edited:
115lbs is a not to big antelope which I think an M16 could bring down almost every time at 200yds
Click to expand...


How many antelope have you shot????

Hitting an antelope in the heart lung area is a killing shot no doubt, but more then once I've seen antelope hit in the heart lung are and run 200 yards or more before the go down.

You killed 'em but you didn't stop them. Outside of a head/neck/spine shot the only way to "stop them" is by breaking them down.........hitting bone.

Sorry I just don't buy the ideal you can use a calculator to guarantee a one shot stop on any animal.
 
Just theory

I have to repeat this I'm a Brit, don't have guns but I do have knowledge.
I didn't want to start a discussion about stopping power formula's, still don't but if you accept that Marshal and Sandow published figures have any merit at all then I was trying to make Mathematics prove published figures and then apply it to hunting with a rifle. For example: Winchester 458 magnum is an elephant gun with no 1 shot stop published for it. V =1898@ 100yds with a 500gr bullet at 100yds for a 1 shot stop(calculated) of 825% if the target was 200lb(man). You can't get better than 100% chance of a 1 shot stop.

Shoot the man in the foot and there is no guarantee he will be stopped.

Using the formula the 458 should stop an animal of 8264lbs 100% with all of its shots. The same applies if the elephant is shot in the foot, it won't be stopped unless the bullet goes in or near the right place. If the elephant was 10052 lbs and the bullet was properly placed there should be a 95% chance of a 1 shot stop.

Whatever the percentage chance with a certain weight category there are no real certainties. What I mean by a 1 stop shot is: Target goes down immediately and stays down or, The target gets about 50yds and drops before you chamber a new round and aim at the target.

What I'm really doing with the calculator is proving to myself the M16 is the wrong gun for Big Game. And the 458 Win isn't to bad a choice.

mik:D
 
Last edited:
When I attended the Northwest Traffic Institute taking an Accident Reconstruction Course, we proved via math that if you could get a bumble bee going fast enough, it would stop a freight train. That being V Squared X Bullet weight/ 450240 = KE, then you get the Bumble bee going fast enough to exceed the energy of the freight train.

Guess what, even if you could get a bumble bee going that fast, it ain't gonna stop a train.

Same thing with the 458 WM V the elephant. You can kill it, but to stop it you need a brain/Neck/spin shot OR break down bones so it goes down.

There is no guarantee of DRT (dead right there) I don't care what Math says.

A few years ago I killed a buffalo (American Bison) with a 4 inch Mode 28 357 using 150 grn LSWC. Shot it twice in the head, the frist shot bounced off. I shifted down a tad and the second shot penetrated the brain, killing it.

According to your math, the energy was the same and should have had the same result, but in reality, the first shot did nothing but make it mad, the second killed it ONLY because it entered the brain.
 
Guess what, even if you could get a bumble bee going that fast, it ain't gonna stop a train.
Click to expand...
Of course not... everyone knows that hummingbird is the minimum caliber for freight train hunting. :D:D

Seriously, though, there are way too many variables going on when shooting a live target to be able to claim that one equation can be universally applied to determine lethality.
I have already mentioned physiological differences from one animal to another, and that is an important consideration, but you might be able to factor that into an equation.
One thing that cannot be calculated, however, is the target's will to live. We have all heard stories (and many on this forum have witnessed first hand) an example of an animal that ran and had to be tracked for several hundred yards after a good hit, only to find during field dressing that the lungs and heart had been completely destroyed by hydrostatic shock.

Remember: Wild animals don't take math classes.
 
Remember: Wild animals don't take math classes.
Click to expand...

Heh!

And those classes would be worthless if they did not include the near infinite number of variables involved, including individual anatomy differences, angle of attack, bullet construction ......

You can not guarantee anything .... only make reasonable predictions/educated guesses ..... that's why it's "Hunting", as opposed to "shooting animals".
 
The British Mouse gun

0.22 air rifle 500ft/sec and 16 gr easily deformed pellet.
This gives a 1 shot stop of 0.88% on a man. I think to get an instant stop you would need to hit a man in the eye. I know from personal experience this rifle will kill a half pound rat. Yet the 100% hit chance weight is so low as to be almost impossible to measure.
The formula I have presented seems good to me as long as the percentage hit versus a man is +>10%. It will then produce a weight for a 100%(theoretical) hit chance on an animal.
It is my belief that there are no coincidences in mathematics I'm trying to model maths to mirror reality.
 
Kraigwy

Your first shot bounce of your Bison's head possibly due to strike angle and bone thickness. If a bullet on test penetrates 5" of bone 10 times out of ten, there is no guarantee it will penetrate 5" of bone when you need it to: thats Sods Law. The same with formulas if infinite variables are concerned then what you get is a guide.
 
bigmikey76

I can't do field testing, however the Win Mag in 458 is I believe an accepted elephant gun fit for purpose. The formula presented seems to confirm that.
In fact if I could have found a serious flaw in it I would not have posted it.
Taylors knockdown formula is often rubbished by saying a baseball has the stopping power of an elephant gun. A Baseball doesn't penetrate like a bullet but i can stop a man in his tracks.
The baseball has about 120% 1 shot stop chance against a 200lb man 100% versus 344Lbs it could be lethal and could stop a man but its not a bullet.
 
I honestly don't know whether the 458 Win Mag is a fit weapon fo elephants. There are no elephants in my neck of the woods, and I have never paid much attention to rifles beyond what I will need for North American game. Whether it is the right weapon for the job, however, is not at issue here. As I said in my first response, your formula seems to be a good way to determine what is or is not a reasonable round for a specific animal. Being a reasonable round, however, does not always guarantee a one shot stop, especially as you have defined it:
Target goes down immediately and stays down or, The target gets about 50yds and drops before you chamber a new round and aim at the target.
Click to expand...
I am not a math guy. I tried to apply your calculation to a .30-06 150 gr bullet against a 200 lb deer, and I failed miserably, unless a 36258% chance of a one shot stop is the correct answer, that is. :confused: Regardless of my mathematical ineptitude, however, I am sure that your calculation would say there is a 100% chance if the calculations were done properly. Many American hunters - some on this forum, in fact - would say that a .30-06 is more gun, by far, than is needed for even the largest deer. Every deer season, however, there are deer shot in the lungs with a .30-06 that do not react as your equation says they should. They do not drop dead immediately, nor do they run 50 yards or less before stopping. How does your equation account for that kind of situation? Can it be explained mathematically?
My point is, and has been since my first response, that while an equation may be able to identify whether a round is likely to achieve a one shot stop, it cannot guarantee it. You state:
In fact if I could have found a serious flaw in it I would not have posted it.
Click to expand...
The flaw is simply this - that your hypothesis has not been tested. Like any hypothesis, it must be tested before it can be reasonably presented as a viable theory, let alone as fact. The fact that you are currently unable to test it is immaterial. Had you presented this as a hypothesis for discussion, I would most likely have left your thread alone, as I am not mathematically equipped to keep up with that side of the discussion. In fact, you may have gotten some volunteers to test your theory and provide you with real world results to either support or refute it. I responded as I did, however, because you have presented your untested hypothesis as fact.
 
Another example of where "math" falls down is the shape of the bullet.

We know we must have penetration or you're not going to bring down anything.

Lets say you have two bullets, different shape but otherwise the same weight, velocity, powder charge, etc, one penetrates the other.

A good example was during WWI when tanks first hit the battle field. They were light skinned but still many of our small arms (rifle bullets) wouldn't penetrate the light armor.

GIs being GIs started playing around with their ammo. They found if the pulled the 150 gr. spear point bullet, and inverted in the case (changing nothing else), the flat rear of the bullet would penetrate the tank's armor.

These bullets also sent hot lead into the tank causing fuel and ammunition fires but that is another topic.

So, how does the "math" apply in this case?

There are too many varables involved to solve the problem with math alone.
 
For bigmikey76

It is hard to put the maths in a post like this, I,m not sure but I think your numbers are for a different load and you forgot 2 zeros.
30 06@2580ft/sec and 150gr bullet at 100yds works out at about 308% chance of a 1 shot stop. You can't get better than 100% in reality the formula predicts that you should get a 1 shot stop on an animal of 800lbs so a 200lb deer should go down like it was poleaxed(I know they don't always).
I did not intend to present this formula as a fact, you are right it is an untested hypothesis.
My data says 1466ft/sec @500yds and 150gr bullet. This gives a 1 shot stop on a 200lb animal of about 99%. I don't think that's far of the mark.:D
 
Hear is another example that throws math out the window.

Lets compare Moose and Elk. Lets say we have two identical weight animals.

Elk had a much larger lung capacity the moose. So if you get a lung shot on an elk, because of its larger lung capacity it will normally run a lot farther then a Moose before it goes down.

As I said, there are too many variables.
 
Thank goodness for Google Alerts or I'd not have seen this.

I have to agree about throwing the math out the window. A simple mental exercise just really doesn't take in enough variables to make it valid. It's only use is when you are standing in the gun store looking at two different boxes of ammo and wondering which would be better. No easy answer because the formula, no matter what you divide it by, doesn't calculate shot placement.

For example, everyone out here has told me that .30-30 Win isn't an Elk Round, and that .300 RUM totally is. That's the general consensus and I mostly agree. Yet I have been on a hunt where I watched through some Swaro EL's the hunter place a perfect shot on an Elk with a .300 RUM loaded with Accubond 180's. We then tracked that elk dang near a mile. And I have dropped an elk like it was pole-axed with a single shot from my 16" .30-30 loaded with 160 LEVERevolutions. (200 yards, solid braced shot, animal standing perfectly still)
His shot tore both lungs and tore a bit of heart. A one shot fatal hit, for sure... but even that wasn't a stop. My shot was a CNS shot at the base of the skull.
The bullet's vector through the target is everything. Even on big game. The bullet, as long as it's adequate, will do the job if the Hunter does his. An Ethical Hunter knows his limitations of himself and his weapon. That's the difference between a success and a wounded animal.

The formula also doesn't touch the bullet's construction. Jacket design, taper, and everything having to do with Terminal ballistics... only Exterior ballistics. Ballistic Coefficient has never killed a big game animal.
 
When I attended the Northwest Traffic Institute taking an Accident Reconstruction Course, we proved via math that if you could get a bumble bee going fast enough, it would stop a freight train. That being V Squared X Bullet weight/ 450240 = KE, then you get the Bumble bee going fast enough to exceed the energy of the freight train.
Click to expand...
No, the only thing that was proved is that if the bumblebee goes fast enough it can have the same energy as a freight train. That proves nothing about whether the train will stop or not, just about how much energy there will be in the collision.

First of all, before you start doing any math, if there's going to be any chance of stopping the train, one has to make the unwarranted assumption that the collision will be perfectly elastic. A collision between a train and a bumblebee will be anything but perfectly elastic. So, basically, even in theory you can't stop a train with a hyperfast bumblebee unless the train and the bumblebee have totally unrealistic material properties.

Second, even if you make the unwarranted assumption that the collision is perfectly elastic and you wanted to know how fast the bumblebee had to really go to stop the train, the comparison must be done with momentum, not energy.

Finally, there are limits to how fast you can make a bumblee go and there's not enough energy in the universe to accelerate one to the speed it would have to attain to stop a typical 100 car freight train going at 60mph even if we make our unwarranted assumption of a perfectly elastic collision.

Basically the "proof" wasn't any kind of a proof at all, it was an exercise in calculating kinetic energy mixed up in a poorly constructed word problem filled with unstated and unwarranted assumptions and flawed by a basic lack of understanding of the difference between energy and momentum.

The bottom line is that if one truly understands the science and math, they can be used to improve one's understanding of real-world situations. But making incorrect assumptions, misapplying the science and math and oversimplifying problems just makes a mess of things. That kind of thing ends up convincing people that math and science are unreliable tools when just the reverse is true.
 
Calculating stopping power is useless. Central Nervous System shots are the only guaranteed stopper, and anything from 22 rimfire on up will do the job if you can put lead on target.

On their own, both Energy and Momentum are very poor indicators of lethality. What you need is Accuracy to put the bullet where you want it, Penetration to reach a part of the anatomy that needs to be destroyed, and lastly Expansion/Disruption to turn all that energy and momentum into damage.

Bottom line? There are no magic bullets or scientific formulas for lethality. Those solid copper Safari slugs for braining an elephant are going to make you wish for a shotgun when the rattlesnake starts gnawing on your ankle. Heck, even a twelve guage slug to a human chest is not a guaranteed stopper, took one guy over a minute to bleed out (PCP is a helluva drug).

Jimro
 
You bust Bambi in the white spot, it doesn't much matter what you use. I know from experience that a .222 Remington was plenty-enough. :)

When the neck's broke, they fold up and quit right there. Most were green-eyed by the time I walked up to them, so I call that DRT.

And a fair number of comments from folks who have hunted in Africa have offered negative comments on the .458 Winchester for elephant. There is an apparent problem with reliably-adequate penetration.
 
Of course not... everyone knows that hummingbird is the minimum caliber for freight train hunting.
Click to expand...

But I've had those fail & at the worse possible time. After that I went to Robins with no failures. Not sure it's the speed or body mass though & suggest those looking for freight trains take a long hard look at the Robin's beak. There in I think lies the secret.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top