All this talk about energy is irrelevant unless bullet construction is somehow factored into a mathematical formula, a requirement that none of the formulas {except Taylor, but only sort-of as JPK identifies}.

In the final analysis, field shooting is the only way to KNOW how a load will perform, and even that requires a fairly large number of shots-on-game in order to form the basis of semi-accurate predictions if an unknown {like a different species of game, radically different shot angle, etc} is injected into the discussion.

++++++++++++++++

Agree totally with the above---shooting the game you are loading for IS IMHO, the only sure way,,one can guess, predict, calculate, etc the outcome and be fairly close,, especially with all the info at our fingertips..all we have to do is google and find more info in an hour than we could have spending a month at the library a decade ago..

Bullet construction must be factored in.. perfect example I experienced was using Nosler Accubonds faster than their construction would hold up to..which, in my experience they are a good bullet up to 3000fps or slightly more but after that..all bets are off...however A-Frames or Barnes of identical weight and velocity hold up to 3100 and above with no problem..at least that has been my experience on game ranging in size from pronghorn, impala, deer, elk, eland and kudu..

Not sure there is a sure fire formula, Keiths included..but Taylor is definitely not as well...

As mentioned..makes for very interesting debates around the campfire with beer in hand...

Ripp