It used to be that a hunter's max distance for a clean kill was the distance where bullet weight & velocity equaled 1000 ft lbs of energy. This was just a standard that was used to insure a clean and quick death for the deer. My question is "do you think the improvements in bullets may have changed that value "? Thanks Daniel

My argument to that criteria has always been the 44 Magnum and 45 Colt. Neither produce that kind of energy even at the muzzle much less 100 yards but I doubt you will find many hunters that would consider them inadequate.

1000 ft/lbs was always an arbitrary number. People just latched on to it and it became a 'standard'. As JCB said, look at many pistol cartridges that people regularly kill deer with. Also, lots of deer have been killed with the .22 Hornet and the .218 Bee, neither of which threatens 1000 at the muzzle.

Yes sir that is way out dated. Modern air rifles have changed all that and forced many wildlife departments to re-evaluate what is acceptable. Texas for instance uses 215 FPE and a combination of 30 caliber and 150 grain slugs for taking deer. As far as a rule of thumb, 2 FPE per pound of body weight is a better universal standard in my opinion. So in my case, my air rifle shoots a .308 caliber 145gr slug 1025 FPS producing 338 FPE, about 2:1 margin on most south Texas deer in our area.

357 mag falls into this same category, yet it does a stellar job on deer out of a rifle out to 100 yards.

I load subsonic ammo for almost any cartridge out there. I have hunters who take deer with 270 Win subs in 130 grain, 243 Win subs with 75 grain HP, 308 Win with 180 grain SP, 6.5 Creedmoor with 156 grain SP. With good shot placement, they work fine. The energy on most of those rounds are in the 180 to 400 ft lbs of energy. Shot placement is key. I have one guy that kills MANY deer a year with a 243 sub and 75 grain HP bullet. He said the bullet expands and does a lot of damage and is a very effective round with good shot placement.

I have spoken to hunters who purposefully bought a 300 RUM because they are self admittedly bad shots. So they compensate by buying a larger round with "more knock down power".

The key is this- shot placement. You can take an inferior round and it perform well with the right bullet and good shot placement. Yes, energy on target is important, but not near as much as a well placed shot.

I always thought it crazy the ones that would write in gun rags about having to have 1000ft/lb for deer 1500 for elk and 2000 for moose.... Repeated many times. Then the some of the same write about taking moose with handguns Doesn't add up does it?

357 Mag carbine inside 125 yards is good to go for deer IMO

Chad, I wonder if using a Sub-Sonic .243 - 75 gr producing 175 FPE is legal now? As I stated above, there is a 215FPE threshold now for airguns, so I would assume it would be applicable to Firearms as well? Here is the specific wording:

Alligators, bighorn sheep, javelina, mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, and turkey (except Eastern Turkey) may be taken only with pre-charged pneumatic arrow guns, or pre-charged pneumatic air guns.
Pre-charged pneumatic air guns must fire a projectile of at least 30 caliber in diameter and at least 150 grains in weight with a minimum muzzle velocity of 800 feet per second or any combination of bullet weight and muzzle velocity that produces muzzle energy of at least 215 foot pounds of energy.

I suspect the ethics behind those early numbers include a margin for error in shot placement by the shooter. Less energy delivered outside the vitals means a greater chance of a wounded and lost deer. All of this points to greater demands on the hunter who may not have shot the rifle in months, if not since last season. On the other hand, if they shoot often, their chances of hitting the vitals with less energy is obviously far greater. Which brings us back to shooter ethics and using the load that best matches their capabilities and how often they practice.

Over the years, I have seen some folks that were awful shots. Going to some monster magnum cartridge to compensate for poor shooting skills probably contributes to their poor shooting. When someone comes to me for help, like the woman a couple of days ago, I put them on my 223 bolt gun and 40 gr bullets. No kick at all. When they see how well they can shoot, the confidence rises and we can go to a slightly larger caliber. Don’t want them closing their eyes and gritting their teeth as they jerk the trigger.

Years ago, when I was host hunting, I had a guy in my jeep that missed 11 straight times. Nice guy. Bad shot.

As others have said, shot placement is key.
I admittedly haven’t paid much attention to ammunition development over the last 20 years but I remember that years ago the 1000ft/sec rule had to do with reliable expansion of a lead core bullet. Trauma surgeons in the ER’s recognized that faster moving bullets of the same caliber and makeup produced more trauma to soft tissue.

I don't worry about any of this. I hunt with a man's gun. A 338 Lapua with 250 grain bullets. Every Whitetail I've hit with it went airborne with a cartwheel. I hit a 180 lb buck that actually flipped twice in the air with two cartwheels. When I got to him, a 300 yard walk, looked like he'd been run over with an 18 wheeler. Just buy a man's gun and don't even think about it.

I don't worry about any of this. I hunt with a man's gun. A 338 Lapua with 250 grain bullets. Every Whitetail I've hit with it went airborne with a cartwheel. I hit a 180 lb buck that actually flipped twice in the air with two cartwheels. When I got to him, a 300 yard walk, looked like he'd been run over with an 18 wheeler. Just buy a man's gun and don't even think about it.

No. Improvement in bullets has not changed that. Many have proven with adequate prowess, you can get by with less just fine but it requires more particular shot placement. The erosion of the ruggedness of the American male has manifested in watering down things to a level metromen can handle.

Yes, we now have the computer model ability to stimulate and predict expansion via different designs such as nose cavity depth, jacket thickness, chemical bonding processes etc at a wide impact velocity range. I’ve always thought the 1000lb model was dumb. Killed to many deer within 22-250. To much [censored] died to black powder and early case design cartridges. I think the trend of the faster twist to spin heavier BC bullets out of all calibers is also being new life to the smaller centerfires.

The old age reasoning for bigger cartridges was margin for error. The absolute worst exercise in mental gymnastics out there, proven time and time again by tracking dogs

I think the bigger calibers just give more range, more then most people should take anyway because they/we never practice much