Knockdown power my philosophy

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Raden1942

Raden1942

Member
Feb 15, 2018
1,757
73
California, United States
I would like to hear what you guys have to say about knockdown power. I need to have heard on this forum 1000 times that you want the pellet to hit hard enough to reach vitals but not exit in order to impart all the energy into the animal. I find this philosophy flawed. I have shot hundreds of animals and I have come to the conclusion that for heart /lungs shots a clean pass through is most ideal. This creates a sucking chest wound that kills very quickly. Anyone who has shot a deer in one lung but not the other knows what I'm talking about. Also I have never seen knockdown power kill anything using a vitals area shot. In fact I don't think it matters at all. Head shots are different. I have seen edgun leshey channel tune down a 25 cal pellet to 13 fpe and that guy hits animals right in the head and they bounce off. Essentially he uses the gun like a knocker and scrambles thier brain with on massive contusion. However if the bullet did a clean pass through the thing would be just as dead. I am finding that something I believed for so long is maybe not as practical as I once thought. Tissue damage kills the animal in my experience not knockdown power but knockdown power is useful especially when you need low power around neighbors but only with heads hots. Let me know what you guys think. 
 
There is little too NO hydro static shock at air gun velocities .. this a known fact ! Having some degree of kinetic shock exists if said projectile fully decelerates and stops inside said target. The mush rooming or projectile expansion simply damages more tissue and leads to more hemorrhaging and bleed out. Actually hitting a vital organ and its mortality relationship is something else entirely. ( heart lung and brain shots )

It has been my experience with pellets that STAY WITHIN quarry it creates more shock and pre-death reaction than pass threws do.

Also understanding some critters simply react to being shot more or less so than other critters. The fight or flight reflex is strong with some and weak with others.
 
Upvote 0
I’m more interested in hard lead accurate fast .177’s that can reach the brain or right between ribs to heart 

To me that’s the beauty of an AG. I’m interested in a super accurate .257 for long range targets but that’s way more than what I see lightweight slugs from .22 & .25 PCP’s should even be used for in what I consider a job for a AG. 
 
Upvote 0
This is an interesting topic to me but also one that inevitably goes round in circles between what is the theoretical ideal versus what is practical. Or in other words, do we want to talk about what is possible under a very specific and limited set of circumstances or do we want to talk about what is practical / useful in a broader set of circumstances?



For example, the idea that delivering all of the energy to the critter is most effective. That sounds good to me. Okay, so how do I go about this? It seems to me this goal is only practical for something like a pesting session over a feeder. One quarry at one distance. However let’s say I’m going on hunt and I may be taking shots at various distances, perhaps some as close as 20 yards and others as far as 70 yards. A pellet and energy level that will produce a full dump at 20 yards will not be useful at 70 yards. Or if it produces a full dump at 70 yards, it will pass through at 20 yards. I mean, I know which one I’d pick in this situation but I’m just saying getting a full dump isn’t practical much of the time.



There’s also the problem that these critters will be presenting me with various angles. Some broadside that will put the pellet on a short path through the head or body, and others head on that will put it on a much longer path. Another reason why a full dump isn’t practical much of the time.



Secondly, is it true that a full dump is more effective? Let’s take a scenario where the only thing that changes is the energy. I take two shots on gray squirrels at exactly the same distance and angle of presentation, and precisely the same shot placement through the vitals. Same caliber and pellet. The first one is at 8fpe and the pellet stops just under the hide on the opposite hide. The second one is at 12fpe and it passes completely through. Which one was more effective?



Or are they the same? I don’t mean same in the sense that “dead is dead”, but which one produces more trauma so as to cause a quicker expiration?
 
Upvote 0
I like that. "Overkill is underrated." 

Sorry Motorhead I would have to disagree with - "There is little too NO hydro static shock at air gun velocities .. this a known fact ! "

The choice of a domed pellet a HP pellet or a HP slug can make a huge difference at airgun velocity's. 

In this video you can clearly see the "mist " behind the Starling at 173 yards. Even though it was a bad hit and the Starling flutters off a bit, the damage from the HP vaporizing 10+% of his body still kills very quick in my opinion. 

https://youtu.be/6a0KywOsE_Q
 
Upvote 0
By the way, I just wanted to add that I’m not a fan of the phrase “knockdown power”. I mean I don’t have an issue with using it in casual conversation but when we’re talking about hunting efficacy and how to quantify it, I don’t think it’s a good term. I guess the first clue would be it has no units of measure :) I tend to substitute “energy delivered” in its place. Energy delivered has a direct correlation with damage. If the pellet interacts with relatively little bone and tissue on its way through, it will expend little of its energy and produce relatively little damage. If it interacts with more, it will expend a larger portion of its energy and produce more damage. More damage = more effective.
 
Upvote 0
I cannot speak much on small (squirrel/bird) sized animals but for big game (hog/deer) the through and through does not effect the animal near as much as a dump into the vitals 

A through and through allows the blood to drain making it easier to track that is true, but a single entry into the lungs will cause the cavity to fill with blood forcing the animal to slow and stop they drown in their own blood, grusom yes but it's the fact, 

Also the dump itself causes more tearing of the connecting tissue causing secondary bleeding It also seems like the bullet destabilizes and tumbles when it drops speed causing larger wound channel 

Almost all my large animal Airgun kills was a single entry no exit and in almost all cases the animal died within 75 yards from being shot 
 
Upvote 0
Yup nervous I used knockdown because everyone knows what I'm talking about but where I differ with you is I don't think it does any real extra damage. Except with heads hots. Clearly dumping energy into a skull will be like a kick to the face by a horse. I just don't think that effect does anything to game with chest wounds. In fact I am arguing that clean pass through does more damage due to more tissue damage. High powered powder burners may be different with hydrostatic shock which you want with moose and maybe elk but I try to avoid with deer anyway. I am going to go squirrel hunting and try this out with 2 guns. One tuned low and one tuned high. I'll let you know how it works out. If I have to eat crow on this I will I just don't think clean pass through are bad unless the pellet doesn't mushroom or something. 
 
Upvote 0
On the topic of more energy delivered = more damage = more effective, it follows that we prefer a pellet that expends more of its energy on its way through. To my knowledge, there are two key factors that influence a pellet’s ability to do that.



The first is its cross-sectional area. Here we are talking about using either a larger caliber or an expanding pellet. So for example, I would say a .22 that expands to .25 is at least as effective as a .25 that does not expand. The problem we face is that sub-1000fps velocities do not promote significant expansion. In ongoing attempts to get around it, pellet manufacturers have come up with a variety of hollow point designs that will expand at relatively low velocities. Unfortunately for the most part this comes at the expense of accuracy at longer ranges so we have to make a choice. In my experience with a good bit of small and medium game with small bore calibers (.177, .22, and .25), I tend to look at it as a choice between an expanding pellet with “good enough” accuracy at distances of 30 yards nominal or maybe 50 yards max, but once most shots will be 40 – 50 yards or more, I’m reaching for the domes without question.



For the second point, I want return to the example of a .22 expanding to .25 and bring up geometry. I assert the expanded pellet actually does more damage than a .25 dome that does not expand. Why? Because the resulting shape of the deformed head will tear flesh on its way through, producing a larger wound channel than the .25 dome that essentially icepicks its way through. We can see this effect when punching paper with wadcutters and domes, the former producing a large round hole and the latter producing a smaller tear.
 
Upvote 0
On the topic of more energy delivered = more damage = more effective, it follows that we prefer a pellet that expends more of its energy on its way through. To my knowledge, there are two key factors that influence a pellet’s ability to do that.



The first is its cross-sectional area. Here we are talking about using either a larger caliber or an expanding pellet. So for example, I would say a .22 that expands to .25 is at least as effective as a .25 that does not expand. The problem we face is that sub-1000fps velocities do not promote significant expansion. In ongoing attempts to get around it, pellet manufacturers have come up with a variety of hollow point designs that will expand at relatively low velocities. Unfortunately for the most part this comes at the expense of accuracy at longer ranges so we have to make a choice. In my experience with a good bit of small and medium game with small bore calibers (.177, .22, and .25), I tend to look at it as a choice between an expanding pellet with “good enough” accuracy at distances of 30 yards nominal or maybe 50 yards max, but once most shots will be 40 – 50 yards or more, I’m reaching for the domes without question.



For the second point, I want return to the example of a .22 expanding to .25 and bring up geometry. I assert the expanded pellet actually does more damage than a .25 dome that does not expand. Why? Because the resulting shape of the deformed head will tear flesh on its way through, producing a larger wound channel than the .25 dome that essentially icepicks its way through. We can see this effect when punching paper with wadcutters and domes, the former producing a large round hole and the latter producing a smaller tear.
Click to expand...

This is where bullets offer more than pellets IF AND I STRESS IF your gun is equipped to shoot them accurately, because of the skirt on a pellet being easily deformed if to soft manufacturing has to make them out of a harder lead, a slug on the other hand allows for a softer lead and therefore can have deeper hollowpoint and other expanding features allowing them to function without effecting accuracy or at least to a minimal level. A good example was my .25 Marauder it loved hunter supply slugs although I will admit I had to retune the gun up and lost some in the area of shot count. 

The biggest issue with slugs is the simple fact that the manufacturing companies cannot seem to follow any simple uniform sizing a .25 might be anything from a .250 to .259 so slug manufacturers can produce good accurate shooting slugs that will work universal across the board
 
Upvote 0
Hi Augie, we may be talking about slightly different things so if I misunderstood you here, please feel free to correct me. You stated:



“I used knockdown because everyone knows what I’m talking about but where I differ with you is I don’t think it does any real extra damage”



Yes, I am saying more knockdown power means more damage…real, useful damage if you will. Again I will substitute “energy delivered” in place of “knockdown power”. The only way to deliver more energy (knockdown power) is to damage more tissue. If I want to maximize damage, I must maximize knockdown power.



It seems to me the disagreement we have is probably due to a difference in how we define knockdown power. For example I’ve frequently seen it used to describe some esoteric, hard-to-define qualities of a projectile. “These pellets have amazing knockdown power,” they might say. To me that just says it transfers a lot of its energy and does a lot of damage.



About your planned experiment, I look forward to hearing your results. I have done similar experiments over the last couple of years and have formed an opinion based on my observations. But before voicing it, I was hoping to get some thoughts from folks on the “8fpe full dump versus 12fpe pass through” scenario.
 
Upvote 0
I like that. "Overkill is underrated." 

Sorry Motorhead I would have to disagree with - "There is little too NO hydro static shock at air gun velocities .. this a known fact ! "

The choice of a domed pellet a HP pellet or a HP slug can make a huge difference at airgun velocity's. 

In this video you can clearly see the "mist " behind the Starling at 173 yards. Even though it was a bad hit and the Starling flutters off a bit, the damage from the HP vaporizing 10+% of his body still kills very quick in my opinion. 



https://youtu.be/6a0KywOsE_Q

Click to expand...


Your making a mistake in your thinking of what HYDROSTATIC shock is and the type wound it creates with KINETIC shock and a projectile that is simply tearing at the flesh as it exits. Hydrostatic shock turns flesh into jello gelatin's goo because the actual cell structure of the tissue is being ruptured. Pellets or slugs at Air Guns speeds don't do this IMO.

Sadly been around a lot a weapon wounds in my life and know there is a very distinct difference.



We can agree to disagree and still voice opposing views having the feeling we're both correct. I'm good.



Scott S
 
Upvote 0
Motorhead sir, would not hydrostatic shock come in to play more with a light weight faster moving, higher velocity projectile and the kinetic shock be more to a slower moving heavier weight projectile?

Sorta like

hydrostatic shock = magnum power hunting rifle

kinetic shock = typical muzzle loader

I totally agree with what you are saying. Have seen lots of video of hydrostatic shock where the "wound cavity" is huge compared to the actual entry hole, plus the jellied tissue damage and destruction. Whereas a muzzle loader, aka heavier less aerodynamic projectile just really ends up "punching" a hole thru the intended target with not a lot of internal damage.

But how would one compare that to an airgun at airgun velocities?

Might be the difference between a Talondor chambered in .257 and a big bore flinging .50 cal boulders :)

Ray
 
Upvote 0
About hydrostatic shock...note that despite extensive military and medical research, the nature and extent of hydrostatic shock is still pretty poorly understood, even contentious. The more compelling examples I've read involve velocities much, much greater than airguns. More like >2000fps. By compelling I mean the autopsies revealed hemorrhaging distant from the wound, like a chest wound that produced brain hemorrhaging. That's not to say a lesser impact may not cause some lesser incapacitating effect...but if there is, it isn't supported by anything approaching a scientific consensus.
 
Upvote 0
I'm going to take out my 22cal condor and tune it to 18 or 20 fpe if it will go that low. It probably will with the ringlock kit. Then I'm going to detune the gamo urban to 8fpe and find a place with squirrels. Easier said than done since I live in the San Francisco Bay area but perhaps I will go to Clearlake or something. I appreciate all your thoughts I will use domes at 50 yards and polymags at 30 and 15 yards. 
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu