Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact
NitroExpress.com: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula

View recent messages : 24 hours | 48 hours | 7 days | 14 days | 30 days | 60 days | More Smilies


*** Enjoy NitroExpress.com? Participate and join in. ***
You are not logged in. [Login] Main Index · Search · Active Topics
New user · Who's Online · FAQ · Calendar

Shooting & Reloading - Mausers, Big Bores and others >> Big Bore Rifles
Previous topic Previous   Search Results   Next topic Next   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)
Freeloader123
.275 member


Reged: 23/07/10
Posts: 86
Loc: Dallas, Texas
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: hunter_angler]
      #176534 - 03/03/11 03:51 PM

Quote:

Quote:



We were - or I was - talking about Big Game - bigger than deer.

Re your 270, I always go the bigger bullet as I reckon it just gives you the edge on angling shots for penetration
as the weight carries it through well.



Again, I agree.

I am the one guilty of changing the subject by bringing up whitetails, but have to say that even on deer, at least in the deep woods where I hunt, I prefer a bigger, heavier bullet to stop and anchor the animal where I hit him. Maybe I am just a lousy shot through the trees and brush with my iron sights, but I hate tracking wounded game, and I want the hunt over as quickly and humanely as possible.

Now, where I hunt there are few shots over 75 yards. If you hunt deer in the open, with good visibility and at longer and more varying ranges, somewhat lighter bullets and higher velocities make for flatter shooting, and I can understand the preference.

Even against larger or dangerous game, a relatively smaller .338 or .375 magnum probably makes more sense at 150 yards or more. When it's up close and personal (like it should be when it's more about hunting than marksmanship, IMHO), give me at least a .400. I also believe that close range hunting is what Mr. Taylor was talking about.



For once I'm not guilty of changing the subject.

I grew up in the Pacific Northwest hunting blacktails in the thick woods and I do not use a .270 there. I use a .300 Savage. But I've got to confess to using 150 grain bullets as opposed to 180 grain bullets. For two reasons; (a) that's what's on the shelves in the stores where I bought my ammo and (b) they work.

It may be that my experience is different than most, but for animals below 300 pounds I don't find the heaviest-for-caliber-bullet to be the best choice. I seem to anchor them better when I use bigger-than-needed-cartridge with a light-but-still-reasonable bullet.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hunter_angler
.300 member


Reged: 24/03/10
Posts: 104
Loc: Grand Marais, Michigan (home i...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Freeloader123]
      #176556 - 04/03/11 12:42 AM

Freeloader:

I hear ya. I err a little on the bigger side in caliber, but with my .348 I use 250 grainers in the U.P. for deer and black bear, as opposed to 270 gr which I will take to Alaska, and when I used to hunt more with my .45-70 I would generally use 300gr and leave the 400 gr plus for bigger and badder stuff.

I like some margin for error, but am not about unneccessary recoil, or using way more gun/bullet than what I think is needed.

I guess it's all relative. Now that there is 190 gr factory ammo available, I might even try my old .30-30 again. As I get a little older I appreciate just how light and handy the Winny '94 I have had since I was young is to carry in the backcountry.

--------------------
Semper Paratus

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Wes350
.224 member


Reged: 23/03/08
Posts: 31
Loc: CA,
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: eagle27]
      #177096 - 14/03/11 04:50 AM

Quote:

I'm curious; that is the "old" speed for my .416. 2400 fps is about what Rigby & co. got out of her. Now it's "bad news.?"




Actually, The original Rigby load was 2,350fps out of a 28" test barrel.

In 24" lengths velocity would have been around 2,300fps.

The .416 rigby made its rep at a lower velocity than many credit it for.

Not unusual though, if one reads the velocity figures Taylor quotes for cartridges like the .30-06 and others that have made it to today, you can see that modern loadings are about 100fps faster than origional spec.

Extra velocity isn't needed because all those cartridges made thier reputations long before US manufacture's started loading them up to "improve" performance.


.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
eagle27
.400 member


Reged: 24/01/09
Posts: 1151
Loc: Rolleston, Christchurch, New Z...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Wes350]
      #177125 - 14/03/11 06:00 PM

Wes350, the Kynoch website lists their loads for the various cartridges they load today and it seems they have stuck to the original specifications for these cartridges. They list the 404 Jeffery 400gr at 2125fps from a 28" barrel with 16 tons/inch2 pressure, the 416 Rigby 410gr at 2300fps from a 26" barrel with 18 tons/inch2 pressure and the 425WR 410gr at 2350fps from a 32" barrel with 18tons/inch2 pressure.

Of course these barrel lengths are not the normal length used on the old Mausers or any modern gun, most being 24" or less. The original WR rifles did have long 28" barrels according to Taylor which were unhandy to use in the bush.

If your Rigby velocity of 2350fps was indeed that and derived from a 28" barrel you would expect a drop of more than 50fps going to a 24" barrel. Even at 20fps per inch less barrel length which is low, your MV for the Rigby would be 2270fps.

As always there is only one way to find out exactly what the MV is of any gun with any load and barrel length and that is to chrony it. My Mauser 404 usually gives 100fps less than advertised factory loads so is around 2150 fps with factory stuff. Got the job done on some big Aussie buffalo without any drama and I suppose that is all you ask for.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bindi2
.275 member


Reged: 03/03/11
Posts: 80
Loc: WA, Aust
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: eagle27]
      #177138 - 14/03/11 11:01 PM

i have been following this thread with interst. The last poster gives it in tonns per sq inch. An engineer i know was asked why he was using such a large hammer so gently instead of a smaller one. The answer was you can give a little hit with a big hammer but not a big hit with a small hammer.
The thread 12bore from hell has me thinking what will a 730gn projectile figures be at 1800fps to 2500fps be. I think some well known calibres may retreat to small rifle status.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26870
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Bindi2]
      #177143 - 15/03/11 01:11 AM

Good suggestion, Bindi2. A 730 @ 2,500fps, by the formula, produces 10,133fpe - so that number and designation actually means that bullet developes the energy required to move 10,133 pounds, 1 foot.

I don't happen to believe that it will do that. You shouldn't either. It is a meaningless number in relation to a bullet. The formula is flawed and should not be used to describe anything to do with bullets.

This post is not meant to belittle the potential killing power of a 730gr. bullet at 2,500fps, just that the formula does not produce meaningful numbers to explain or express that power.

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
eagle27
.400 member


Reged: 24/01/09
Posts: 1151
Loc: Rolleston, Christchurch, New Z...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Bindi2]
      #177170 - 15/03/11 03:41 PM

Quote:

i have been following this thread with interst. The last poster gives it in tonns per sq inch. An engineer i know was asked why he was using such a large hammer so gently instead of a smaller one. The answer was you can give a little hit with a big hammer but not a big hit with a small hammer.
The thread 12bore from hell has me thinking what will a 730gn projectile figures be at 1800fps to 2500fps be. I think some well known calibres may retreat to small rifle status.



Hi Bindi2, you may have misunderstood (or not), and to be fair I should have clarified that the lbs/inch2 referred to the chamber pressure not hitting power or knock down. I was just noting the chamber pressure to show that while 404 Jeffery cartridge recorded lower velocities than the 416R and 425WR it could easily be loaded up to similar velocities if the chamber pressure was increased to the same level. In fact this is what some factory loadings have done and many reloaders do.

Edited by eagle27 (15/03/11 03:42 PM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bindi2
.275 member


Reged: 03/03/11
Posts: 80
Loc: WA, Aust
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: eagle27]
      #177181 - 15/03/11 07:36 PM

i should explain where i am coming from.
Recently a 300 Wthy Mag was fired at a well known gas cylinder @ 25 -30m to see what the results were. The cylinder hardly moved in fact some onlookers said the shooter missed, a short walk proved other wise with a hole dead centre 3/4 up from the bottom through both sides. A 12bore with 1.5oz solid was produced and fired at the same range same cylinder. The results were the cylinder cartwheeled 6m the impact had started to tear the metal but entry did not occur. In summary the 300 had to much power and did little to the cylinder other than a perfect hole in and out. The 12 bore did not gain full entry but did move the cylinder 6m all the power staid with the cylinder. At that range i think i would get very friendly with the 12 bore it has to hurt more.
That new Woodleigh wadcutter is an old design using modern componets brillantly.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kamilaroi
.400 member


Reged: 18/12/04
Posts: 1803
Loc: sydney, new south wales, Austr...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Bindi2]
      #177182 - 15/03/11 08:34 PM

^ Cough. ????????

Any US respondeents care to comment?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hunter_angler
.300 member


Reged: 24/03/10
Posts: 104
Loc: Grand Marais, Michigan (home i...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Bindi2]
      #177192 - 16/03/11 02:16 AM

Per my posts above, penetration kills, but it is not everything. A big, heavy bullet with good cross sectional area moving at sufficient velocity will not only penetrate, but transmit a lot of energy to the target and impart shock and stopping power. This is what I think Taylor was trying to get at in the first place.

I am sure a .300 WIN mag with the right bullet will fatally wound/kill a buffalo just fine. You just don't want it to die after it has run over or through you. Something like a .450 NE or bigger keeps that from happening. After a certain point high velocities as a component of ballistics help for flat shooting at longer range, but provide only so much benefit up close.

As has been said by a wiser man than and long before me, a .58 caliber conical from a blackpowder muzzleoader may not penetrate end-to-end and exit the other side of a moose, but it makes an awful big hole going in. A .72 caliber even more so...

--------------------
Semper Paratus

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bindi2
.275 member


Reged: 03/03/11
Posts: 80
Loc: WA, Aust
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: hunter_angler]
      #177219 - 16/03/11 04:09 PM

Hunter Angler well said.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Reggie
.224 member


Reged: 02/03/10
Posts: 36
Loc: Southeastern Louisiana, USA
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: gryphon]
      #179217 - 16/04/11 06:07 PM

Bottom Line: ALWAYS USE MORE THAN ENOUGH GUN!

Reggie

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BillA
.224 member


Reged: 18/04/11
Posts: 22
Loc: Victoria, Australia
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Homer]
      #179436 - 19/04/11 03:39 PM

Hi all.

Very interesting thread.
My own theory? experience + education + luck = success.
Fact is we are all far better educated regarding ballistics then most were back in Taylor's day.
We also have entirely different components to consider.
No matter what forumla we come up with there will always be variants which will take it one way toward success or the other toward failure.
Bullet jacket thickness is but one factor.
Even with regard to 'solids'. Are we talking about 'hard' solids or 'soft' solids?
The metallurgical composition of a solid could render one successful & another a complete failure.
Then we even have factors such as the animal itself.
Heavy boned, lighter boned, etc.
There's really no absolutes in it all.
In the end 'formulas' are only a guide.
They are all prone to failure unless all factors combine to produce the right results.

And after all's said & done - elephants, lion, & cape buff' cant read.

Edited by BillA (19/04/11 03:41 PM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
tophet1
.400 member


Reged: 15/09/07
Posts: 1873
Loc: NSW, Australia
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: BillA]
      #179440 - 19/04/11 05:25 PM

I don't mind the TKO formula out of the few that are around. It gels with my own phylosophy of slow and heavy beats fast and light. If there is no other info to go on, it is better than nothing.

I do however keep in the back of my mind that it is only a formula, based on calculations. I believe there is no better teacher than experience and to get that, you have to get out there and shoot stuff.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
eagle27
.400 member


Reged: 24/01/09
Posts: 1151
Loc: Rolleston, Christchurch, New Z...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: tophet1]
      #179450 - 19/04/11 07:31 PM

Quote:

I don't mind the TKO formula out of the few that are around. It gels with my own phylosophy of slow and heavy beats fast and light. If there is no other info to go on, it is better than nothing.

I do however keep in the back of my mind that it is only a formula, based on calculations. I believe there is no better teacher than experience and to get that, you have to get out there and shoot stuff.



It is a formula, but not just based on calculations, it was developed by Taylor to explain his field experience on the stopping ability of the different cartridges and bullets when used against dangerous game, namely killing Elephant which of course was Taylor's purpose in life. He made it clear that most any cartridge could easily drop an elephant or any animal for that matter if the bullet was placed into the brain but where the large calibre dangerous game cartridges (40cal above) came into their own was if the shot was just off the brain, his KO value gave an indication of the effectiveness of the cartridge in turning a charge or stunning the animal giving enough time for a follow up killing shot.

I agree his formula is not perfect for use today but considering that in Taylor's time the velocities in the big calibres were all within a hundred or so fps of each other and the bullet profiles were all very much the same, the formula did provide a pretty good comparative scale for the African big bores.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kamilaroi
.400 member


Reged: 18/12/04
Posts: 1803
Loc: sydney, new south wales, Austr...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: eagle27]
      #179454 - 19/04/11 08:50 PM

^ but he dicked it big time on the 9.5 x 57 MS and the 10.75 x 68 damned by poor projie construction rather than reality.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
eagle27
.400 member


Reged: 24/01/09
Posts: 1151
Loc: Rolleston, Christchurch, New Z...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: kamilaroi]
      #179504 - 20/04/11 02:29 PM

Quote:

^ but he dicked it big time on the 9.5 x 57 MS and the 10.75 x 68 damned by poor projie construction rather than reality.



Well no, Taylor could only write about cartirdges as they were in his day. He did write about some poor bullets that one professional used in his .404 but these seemed to be the exception so he praised the .404J rather than write it off.

Hindsight is all well and good for us to use today now that we have some great bullets available that up the performance of some of the old cartridges. The 10.75x68 was to be Mauser's contribution to dangerous game knock down cartridges but unfortunately poor bullet construction and a lower sectional density than say the 375H&H, .404J and 416R did not endear the cartridge to Taylor. He did admit that it was popular but probably more through the availability of the cheap light Mausers he also spoke of as being on the market.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
chuck375
.333 member


Reged: 13/10/07
Posts: 445
Loc: Colorado Springs CO
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: eagle27]
      #179561 - 21/04/11 11:49 AM

I think a combination of the TKO formula, Art Alphin's penetration index and a lower bound kinetic energy threshold is what we're looking for. The TKO takes rewards bullet diameter and momentum, the penetration index penalizes bullet diameter somewhat but rewards SD and momentum, and kinetic energy should act as a minimum threshold. The penetration index and kinetic energy thresholds should eliminate the baseball problem. Since the 375 H&H has long been considered a good cape buffalo and adequate elephant caliber it gives us a starting place:

375 H&H shooting a 300g bullet at 2550 fps: TKO 40 PI 120 KE 4330

416 Rigby shooting a 400g bullet at 2400 fps: TKO 57 PI 124 KE 5115

500 Jeffery shooting a 570g bullet at 2400 fps: TKO 99 PI 112 KE 7288

and just to add to the mix ...

375 Weatherby shooting a 350g bullet at 2550 fps TKO 47 PI 163 KE 5052

I'd love to see the 375 Weatherby Penetration Index validated with some empirical testing.


Just some data to think about, no conclusions on my part.

Edited by chuck375 (21/04/11 12:46 PM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Freeloader123
.275 member


Reged: 23/07/10
Posts: 86
Loc: Dallas, Texas
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: chuck375]
      #182731 - 29/05/11 10:40 AM

Since this thread has been resurrected, I thought I'd weigh in with a stray thought. Has anybody but me noticed that certain shot angles seem to anchor an animal quicker? Memory is a fickle thing, but I recall having to track more animals that I shot broadside than those I shot quartering towards me where the neck meets the chest.

My experience may well be atypical. But it goes to the point of why I find formulas for killing power problematic. What's typical?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grenadier
.375 member


Reged: 20/02/08
Posts: 570
Loc: North of the Columbia, USA
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: chuck375]
      #182739 - 29/05/11 01:13 PM

Quote:

Since the 375 H&H has long been considered a good cape buffalo and adequate elephant caliber it gives us a starting place:

375 H&H shooting a 300g bullet at 2550 fps: TKO 40 PI 120 KE 4330
416 Rigby shooting a 400g bullet at 2400 fps: TKO 57 PI 124 KE 5115
500 Jeffery shooting a 570g bullet at 2400 fps: TKO 99 PI 112 KE 7288
and just to add to the mix ...
375 Weatherby shooting a 350g bullet at 2550 fps TKO 47 PI 163 KE 5052
I'd love to see the 375 Weatherby Penetration Index validated with some empirical testing.
Just some data to think about, no conclusions on my part.




Shouldn't such things be calculated using the velocity of the bullet at the impact range? Art Alphin lists different ranges when discussing his penetration index. Why not for TKO? There is a difference.

For example:

338 Win Mag Federal, 225gr Trophy Bonded
TKO @ muzzle = 33
TKO @ 100yds = 30

9.3x74R Win Mag Federal, 286gr Barnes Banded
TKO @ muzzle = 35
TKO @ 100yds = 30

458 Lott Federal, 500gr Trophy Bonded
TKO @ muzzle = 75
TKO @ 100yds = 66

470 N.E. Federal, 500gr Trophy Bonded
TKO @ muzzle = 75
TKO @ 100yds = 63

Tools like TKO, MV, ME, and PI allow us to compare and contrast loads and cartridges. Values in one tool favor one load whereas values in another tool favor another load. Application to the "real world" is useful but limited. Effectiveness on game has to do with many factors, including bullet construction. For example, would it be better to shoot a bear with a soft nose .338 or a solid .458? Another example is the Paradox bullet. It has a high TKO but, because it is soft lead and will deform against hard targets, it does not conform to the "non-deforming" projectile used in Art Alphin's penetration index. Also, The Paradox bullet scores a whopping Thornily Stopping Power Scale value of 298 but, because of bullet construction, it is not recommended against "Hippopotamus, Rhinoceros, Cape Buffalo, or Elephant".

Still, just for fun,
.735 Fosbery Paradox bullet, 740gr lead
TKO @ muzzle = 81
TKO @ 100yds = 76

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26870
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Grenadier]
      #182774 - 30/05/11 04:07 AM

All mathmatical formulae that attempt to display/compare ctg. killing power fail due to simple aspects of bullet construction, penetration, attendent tissue destruction and different game reaction to nerve shock - at the time of impact.

Too many important factors to be condensed into in a mere number.

I always used to like the TKO #'s or Elmers Pound-feet - but now realize my first paragraph is more accurate. No fomulae work. I still prefer big and slow because it seems to, for me. Maybe that's the real test. - HA!

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Freeloader123
.275 member


Reged: 23/07/10
Posts: 86
Loc: Dallas, Texas
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: DarylS]
      #182796 - 30/05/11 10:59 AM

"No fomulae work. I still prefer big and slow"

Stop me if I'm wrong, but that latter half seems a formula to me. And I have no problem with it.

Maybe you should write a book.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26870
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Freeloader123]
      #182797 - 30/05/11 11:09 AM

I am referring to formual that produce numbers for comparrison - those numbers don't seem to work - for me, anyway.
I know that high velocity seemingly kills some game incredibly fast, lightening fast in fact, while heavies kill them slower. Used on another animal on the same hunt even, the fast one takes a big back seat to the slower, heavier bullet in killing power while at times, they seem to switch places - the various formulae do not provide any concrete or dependable data for me to process all the time.

FPE has become,for me, largly a laughing stock especially when applied to large bores and round balls- whether they are shot from modern-type double rifles of bore size, or muzzleloading rifles.

Perhaps ctgs. need to be segregated into 'classes' or 'categories' wherein specific formulae work? Too, classes of animals and categories of them would also have to be matched to the various formulae - makes my head hurt just thinking of it.

I'd rather just go big and slow and be done with it as I know it will work.

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Freeloader123
.275 member


Reged: 23/07/10
Posts: 86
Loc: Dallas, Texas
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: DarylS]
      #182803 - 30/05/11 12:36 PM

What I like about your non-formula is it's the American way.

Firepower.

If it's not working, you're not using enough of it.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Omnivorous_Bob
.333 member


Reged: 03/10/05
Posts: 286
Loc: Montana
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Freeloader123]
      #182961 - 01/06/11 12:01 PM

I've always looks at the TKO scale as a non-empirical way to compare the relative merits of two big game cartridges. If Cartridge A has a TKO of 20 and Cartridge B is 60, then B is better than A.

B is NOT three times better or three times as effective, just 'better', all else being equal, which it never is!

Cheers,
Bob

--------------------
"If we're not supposed to eat animals, how come they're made out of meat?"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)


Previous topic Previous   Search Results   Next topic Next   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Extra information
1 registered and 62 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:   

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 29752

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us NitroExpress.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact


Copyright 2003 to 2011 - all rights reserved