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. ***

Shooting & Reloading - Mausers, Big Bores and others >> Big Bore Rifles

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)
gryphon
.450 member


Reged: 01/01/03
Posts: 5487
Loc: Sambar ground/Victoria/Austral...
Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula
      #175601 - 16/02/11 05:55 AM

Apols if prev posted.


III.e. Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula

I almost hate to comment on this one because it happens to be a favorite of one of my favorite gun writers, a man of outstanding skill and a reputable hunter whose guidance in such matters should not be taken lightly (and I don't refer to Taylor!). Taylor himself was also a man of unimpeachable experience and his views on rifles and calibers, especially for dangerous game, is taken as gospel on the subject.

However, this formula has got to go.

I'm sympathetic to the motivations which brought about its creation. The "smallbore cranks" were a cult phenomenon at the time, preaching vehemently about high velocity and kinetic energy. A number of this following ventured to Africa, and like their predecessors in the heyday of blackpowder "express" cartridges, experienced miserable failures in the field, sometimes with fatal consequences to the shooter or guides. Taylor was attempting to counter this "scientific" kind of argument with a kind of scientific methodology. Applying his many years of experience to the problem (and it must be confessed, his biases as well), he developed a formula which favored the kind of bullets and cartridges he knew to work reliably:

TKO = Bullet Weight (lbs) x Impact Velocity (fps) x Bullet Diameter (in)

Regrettably, this formula is as misleading as any kinetic energy figures or OGW or any other I've seen. For example, a hand-thrown baseball would have roughly twice the TKO of the standard nitro express load. I doubt if anyone would argue that bouncing a baseball off the noggin of an elephant would produce any positive result. Taylor himself acknowledged that there wasn't any appreciable difference in the killing performance of the various .400s, .416s, .450s, .465s, .470s, .475s, and .500s on dangerous game when loaded with reliable bullets of sound construction. But his TKO formula (as generally interpreted) exaggerates any difference that might exist because it makes the bore diameter equally as important as the velocity; thus a .488 caliber .475 Jeffery No. 2 is seen to be 7% more potent than a .458 caliber .450 NE even though they both have the same ballistics. The comparison becomes even more exaggerated between a .450/.400 NE and a .500 NE in which the larger bore is calculated to be 55 % more potent, even though Taylor regards them as being very similar in killing performance. In fairness to the author, the TKO value is generally misinterpreted (notice that the table he provides only includes loads for solid bullets). Taylor himself said of it:

"I do not pretend that they [TKOs] represent "killing power"; but they do give an excellent basis from which any two rifles may be compared from the point of view of the actual knock-down blow, or punch, inflicted by the bullet on massive, heavy-boned animals such as elephant, rhino and buffalo". (African Rifles and Cartridges, pg. xii)

"There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about this word "shock"; men seem to be under the impression that it implies killing power. But that is erroneous." (African Rifles and Cartridges, pg. 58)

Elaborating, the author indicates that this stunning effect truly applies for the most part to near misses of the brain on elephant, enabling a more leisurely dispatch with a follow-up shot (possibly of lesser caliber) or, especially, permitting the shooting of other nearby elephants, while the first is down. Such tactics are no longer permissible and were never ethical in my view (Taylor was a self-acknowledged poacher). Indeed, whether his TKO is true even in this sense is a highly contentious matter, disputed by some very experienced African hunters (I will not pretend to be highly experienced in this regard, but I have seen a Cape buffalo shot between the eyes, within millimeters of its brain, with a .500 NE which did not produce any effect whatsoever). More recently, Craig Boddington has voiced a similar doubt on the basis of his observations and those of other contemporary hunters and game control officers ("Like a Freight Train", Rifle Shooter, November - December 2009, pgs. 38 - 42). But the point here is that Taylor never offered this formula as an indicator of killing or even "shocking" performance for hits on the body. That is an American gun pundit extrapolation of thought. Taylor includes TKO values for everything down to the .256 Mannlicher, but not with a view to offering the relative merits of one small-bore or medium-bore against another for general hunting use - its to show how puny these are relative to the big-bores for stopping an elephant. Still, Taylor also made the point that even a stopping rifle was ineffective with poor shooting:

"Both barrels from a .600 in the belly will have little more apparent effect on [an elephant] than a single shot from a .275 in the same place." (African Rifles and Cartridges, pg. 59)

American hunters and gun writers use terms like "stopping power", "shock" and "killing power" to describe how quickly a deer (elk, antelope, etc.) falls when hit. Practically no one hunts elephant anymore and I can't remember the last time I saw an article on that subject. Promotion of the TKO is indicative of the careless way in which any quasi-scientific method is seized upon, even though the originator of it may reject that purpose to which it is put (though, again, I am not endorsing or placing validity on Taylor's TKO calculation, even for the purpose he intended).

Incidentally, if there is a "knockout" effect it will almost certainly be a function of bullet shape, presented area and velocity. Bullet mass will not matter greatly, but a separate calculation would be necessary to assess whether sufficient penetration was provided.


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


Reged: 22/08/08
Posts: 1917
Loc: Northern Territory, Australia
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: gryphon]
      #175603 - 16/02/11 07:06 AM

Interesting reading. I really enjoy Taylor's books. I don't have any idea about knocking animals out or knocking them over. All I know is that I feel more secure and more confident with something .400+ in my hands.

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


Reged: 05/02/06
Posts: 559
Loc: Southern Illinois
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Ben]
      #175702 - 17/02/11 05:08 PM

Easier to figure with bullet weight in grains and divide the whole thing by 7000. Not a perfect formula, but then I'm not sure there is a perfect formula. It does make it easy to compare rifles though.

--------------------
Kyle, I love you buddy, Dad


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: bigdog]
      #175707 - 17/02/11 06:38 PM

I believe that a formula incorporating mass, terminal velocity and sectional density might yield a fair result.

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


Reged: 17/05/04
Posts: 2335
Loc: South Carolina
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: gryphon]
      #175722 - 17/02/11 11:16 PM

Wound channel is pretty important.

--------------------


"Speak Precisely" G. Gordon Liddy.

"Life is absurd, chaotic and we must define its purpose with our actions" Abert Camus

"I''m the dude playing a dude disguised as another dude."

"Yo! Mr. White"


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Huvius
.416 member


Reged: 04/11/07
Posts: 3536
Loc: Colorado
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: bonanza]
      #175730 - 18/02/11 03:19 AM

Quote:

Wound channel is pretty important.




Wound channel and tissue damage is important.
Problem is, there would have to be an inherent deviation in the formula due to bullet shape and construction.

I think Taylor was attempting to come up with a loose formula for "knock down" in the event of a charge/dangerous situation. This is very different than the killing ability of a particular cartridge.

Probably more useful nowdays would be a formula concerning bullet speed, weight and sectional density.
That would help the 9.3X62 croud see that the 318WR and the 333Jeffery are clearly superior

--------------------
He who lives in the past is doomed to enjoy it.


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: kamilaroi]
      #175731 - 18/02/11 03:25 AM

Quote:

I believe that a formula incorporating mass, terminal velocity and sectional density might yield a fair result.




Yep. I would like to see a primarily momentum based formula, somehow also incorporating SD as well as cross-sectional area, at least up to a point. It seems that after bullets get to a certain sheer weight, the latter factors may become less important; i.e. a 500 plus grain bullet of almost any reasonable caliber driven at 2000 or more fps is going to do some damage through living tissue, even on thick-skinned game. Bullet construction is obviously also important but probably impossible to incorporate into the measure. I guess you would have to assume you are comparing, say quality solids or hard-cast leads across cartridges. Expanding bullets add more variables.

I agree that Taylor's formula overemphasizes bullet diameter just as conventional ballistics measures overemphasize energy, but he definitely made a necessary point. If I were facing down a grizzly or buff with a bad attitude, I would rather be shooting a factory loaded pumpkin roller .45-70 405 gr with ME of 1600 ft-lb than a high velocity .220 SWIFT 55 gr with 1800 ft-lb! I also think that stopping power involves a lot more than just penetration. Penetration and a sufficient wound channel kill, but a "stopper" caliber also imparts a great deal of shock to the animal, transferring terminal energy while penetrating. This is why although a hot-loaded .45-70 may penetrate and eventually kill almost as well as a .470 NE, the latter is much better at halting a charging animal in its tracks.


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


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26624
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: hunter_angler]
      #175764 - 19/02/11 02:15 AM

Your last sentences regarding the .45/70 - are you referring to a Trapdoor Springfield's loads, Model 86 or 71 Winchester or Marlin loads, or a Ruger #1 or bolt gun's loads? It does make a difference.

The bolt gun and Ruger can make 2,050fps with 500gr. solids.

What are the 'actual' chronographed ballistics of the .470? Granted the larger bullet of the .470 does or should have an effect - with equal bullet integrity, of coruse, but I think we might have a stalemate there on charging game.

I agree that any formula leaves too much out & that none work all the time.

Coming up with them, ie: inventing formulas, and spouting to all who will read, does pay the gun-writer's bills though - the more diverse the formula, the more words required and the greater the sum of the check.

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


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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
4seventy
Sponsor


Reged: 07/05/03
Posts: 2210
Loc: Queensland Australia
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: DarylS]
      #175775 - 19/02/11 06:56 AM

Quote:

Your last sentences regarding the .45/70 - are you referring to a Trapdoor Springfield's loads, Model 86 or 71 Winchester or Marlin loads, or a Ruger #1 or bolt gun's loads? It does make a difference.

The bolt gun and Ruger can make 2,050fps with 500gr. solids.

What are the 'actual' chronographed ballistics of the .470? Granted the larger bullet of the .470 does or should have an effect - with equal bullet integrity, of coruse, but I think we might have a stalemate there on charging game.






It would only be a stalemate on paper I reckon. The .470NE with a 500 grainer at 2050fps would be running 40,000psi or less, and with the bullet seated to proper depth in the case neck.
How much pressure is a 45-70 running to achieve 2050fps with a 500 grainer, and how far out is the bullet seated in the case?
For DG, and more so for charging DG, give me the low pressure .470NE anyday.


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


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26624
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: 4seventy]
      #175780 - 19/02/11 07:31 AM

Bullet seating is normal for the rifles mentioned. Pressures under 55,000psi - HPWhite. Preferences are what drives industry.


This thread is about formulas.

--------------------
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]
      #175786 - 19/02/11 08:29 AM

I don't think it's possible to come up with a formula that has any sort of precision.

Except that too much is just enough.


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


Reged: 16/05/07
Posts: 1958
Loc: England
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Freeloader123]
      #175787 - 19/02/11 08:47 AM

Much of the debate about Taylor's Knock-Out values is that some very experienced hunters publicised experiences that run counter intuitively, such as occasions when the .577 (Irwin) and .600 (Marsh) failing to exhibit the anticipated K-O effect.
One thing to note with Taylor's Knockout values is that he used nominal rather than actual bullet diameter in some cases, which affects the calculation. Gregor Woods put forward an alternative formula in his book Rifles for Africa that builds on Taylor's theory called Relative Damage Potential.
The formula is RDP=(WxVxA)/7,000 where W is the bullet weight in grains, V is muzzle velocity in fps and A is bullet cross sectional are in square inches (square of radius multiplied by Pi). It is an interesting read.
I don't think any theoretical formula can be universal. However, I am comfortable with one, that 500gr and 5,000 ft/lbs is the benchmark for reliable stopping power on elephant, even if most of the very experienced elephant hunters concede the .416 as the exception....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
4seventy
Sponsor


Reged: 07/05/03
Posts: 2210
Loc: Queensland Australia
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: DarylS]
      #175796 - 19/02/11 11:04 AM

Quote:

Bullet seating is normal for the rifles mentioned. Pressures under 55,000psi - HPWhite. Preferences are what drives industry.


This thread is about formulas.




Ok formulas. Here's one.

CLIENT HUNTER + AFRICA + HI AMBIENT TEMPS + DANGEROUS GAME + LABORATORY HOTROD LOADED 45-70, = PH's NIGHTMARE.


Getting back to Taylor's formula, wasn't it based on the effect of missed brain shots on elephant?
If so that would severely limit it's usefullness in relation to other game, including buffalo IMO.
A shot below jumbo's brain, would still have the bullet impacting heavy bone, where a shot impacting a (charging) buffalo skull below the brain, might only encounter the much lighter bones where the nose joins the skull.
There would be a lot of difference between the two I would think.

I have read Taylor over and over since the late 1970's, and I still enjoy reading it today.
I don't worry about his formula much though, because I don't shoot elephant.
Whether it is right or wrong doesn't really come into it for me, because it deals with a type of hunting and shooting which I doubt I'll ever experience.
To really know if his formula works, IMO you would need to miss the brain shot, on a hell of a lot of elephants, with a hell of a lot of different big game cartridges.



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: 4seventy]
      #175808 - 19/02/11 05:10 PM

Quote:

Quote:

HOTROD LOADED




Speaking of hotrods, what do you euro types hot rod?

The cheap and easy answer over here is the small block chevy. Which I'll build. And I'm a pretty mean hand with a grinder and a set of Sportsman heads. Or eveb S/R Torquers if you don't plan on revving the engine.

But give me a Cleveland Ford any day,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kaizer2007
.300 member


Reged: 04/06/09
Posts: 101
Loc: Ukraine
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Freeloader123]
      #175809 - 19/02/11 06:31 PM

ALL OF PLEASURES
http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/index.htm


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: kaizer2007]
      #175811 - 19/02/11 08:37 PM

I believe that another factor MUST be taken into account; that is the ability of the hunter
to shoot regularly to point of aim from a variety of positions, situations and with MINIMAL flinch. jest sayin'


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: kamilaroi]
      #175854 - 20/02/11 03:21 PM

4seventy

My bad. You're from the land of Holdens and Ford Falcons and Chrysler hemi sixes.

All good stuff.

In any case I just can't take John Taylor's TKO formula seriously. Kamiloroi I think nailed it; it's the ability of the hunter that counts. Very few of us are Karamojo Bell, but it's where you put the hole that counts most. We have a saying in the states; close only counts with hand grenades and nuclear weapons.

I've shot deer here in the US that showed no visible sign of being hit. I didn't even believe I hit them until I followed them up.

I certainly don't think I can stake my life on some theoretical "knock out" formula. All due respect to John Taylor, who had a lifetime more experience than I'll likely ever get on game. But what experience I do have tells me that I can't count on an animal reacting a certain way.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FATBOY404
.400 member


Reged: 14/11/09
Posts: 1730
Loc: QLD
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Freeloader123]
      #175859 - 20/02/11 05:07 PM

I think everything you say is true but would a high knockout value give some insurrance if it goes wrong?.
Was it not said "you should use a caliber that will work when everything goes wrong,not when it all goes right".

I love my 404j, if and when I get to take an Elephant I will use it even though it rates poorly in TKO table.The biggest question for me will be 450 grain solids or 400 grain Hydro's?.

--------------------
"WHATEVER BLOWS YOUR HAIR BACK"


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kaizer2007
.300 member


Reged: 04/06/09
Posts: 101
Loc: Ukraine
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Freeloader123]
      #175861 - 20/02/11 05:08 PM

OK friends.
Truth is always somewhere in between...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rule303
.416 member


Reged: 05/07/09
Posts: 4941
Loc: Woodford Qld
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: FATBOY404]
      #175867 - 20/02/11 06:46 PM

FB404 go the Hydros.

I tend to agree with most of what has been said however in defences of the bullet diameter part of Taylor's formulae. I think he was very astute to pick this up but needed to modify it to allow for shape of nose(of the bullet) and size of any metplat. Not saying that this would be a fit and proper formulae, don't think there is one.

Going back to another doyen of the shooting and hunting world, Elmer Keith. Keith noted that the larger the metplat of the round the quicker or surer it killed. Keith stated that there was no scientific studies on this, it was just his observations from experiments he carried out with 44 cal projectiles. Apparently he made up several batches with the metplat being .001" bigger than the last batch etc. His quarry, I believe, was Deer. Now it is many years since I read this article by Keith and some aspects of the article I just can not remember.

The best formulae, to me, is the one for felt recoil. Find out how much you can handle confidently and don't go above it. That way you have a far better chance of hitting what you want, where you want, when you want.

Cheers

Greg


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: Rule303]
      #175875 - 20/02/11 07:32 PM

Quote:

I tend to agree with most of what has been said however in defences of the bullet diameter part of Taylor's formulae.




I agree Taylor was astute to factor in caliber and bullet weight. I'm not saying it's not important.

But I've shot elephant with more decisive results than impala or deer with the same rifle.

Maybe it's a fact that the bullets people build for a .375 or up are built tougher than you need for a 150 to 500 pound animal. I don't know.

For example, I absolutely staggered a Gemsbock with a shot to the chest. I didn't need to track him.

On the other hand, I took the same shot with the same rifle at about the same range on a Sitka blacktail and didn't even faze it. By all outward appearances.

I needed to track him. He was just as dead, eventually, but I didn't see any immediate evidence of a formula.


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


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26624
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: Freeloader123]
      #175905 - 21/02/11 04:02 AM

Different animals react differently.

Deer are amongst the animals that will dash off until they drop from lack of blood to the brain, ie: total shutdown - sometimes it doesn't matter what you shoot them with, they run to the bush before dropping, or run through the bush 100yards before dropping - with no heart or lungs - competely blown up - yet they run. Sometimes, put a .45 or .50 cal round ball through their lungs and they drop on the spot- happens more often with a round ball than any other type - why? FPE - no - shape & subsequent preceeding shock wave - maybe? formula that would work all the time, let along most of the time? - not bloody likely.

I don't think it's quantifiable.(is that proper use of that word?)

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


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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
500Nitro
.450 member


Reged: 06/01/03
Posts: 7244
Loc: Victoria, Australia
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: DarylS]
      #175908 - 21/02/11 04:39 AM


Daryl,

I've noticed that with Buffalo - same shot, take out the heart, one runs, one doesn't.

I put it down to Kevin Robertson's explanation (The Perfect Shot), that if the heart is full when the the bullet hits,
it send s a spike to the brain, when it's empty, it doesn't.


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


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 26624
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: 500Nitro]
      #175912 - 21/02/11 05:43 AM

Exactly - what about lung shots above the heart? - inflated full of air vs empty - or stomach full of food vs empty - all having a direct reault on penetration as well - how much liquid, how much food to wade through. Big difference in internal damage due to this phenominum some called hydrostatic shock, vs the speed required 'apparently' to activate it in tissue alone.

I think speed is a relative deal here, depending on the condition of the organs - as noted above - full or empty. A lower speed works on full organs, a much higher speed is required to activate the mere tissues themselves. Much comes down to secondary missiles & the damage they create.

Cup pointed bullets such as the new Woodleigh create much more damage than a smoothly rounded solid, as do ordinary flat noses although the cup point rules thus far. Harold Johnson (Cooper's Landing- Alaska) found that out many years ago on coastal grizzlies, ie: Brown and Kodiak bears. He used the base secton weighing around 450gr. from a .5 Browning steel cored machine gun bullet, cut off. He seated them base-cup out and achieved not only great penetration but excellent cavitation inside the animals - instant kills, etc - from a solid. He was driving them quite slow, too, not over 1,800 or 1,900fps muzzle velocity - .50 Alaskan in a Model 71 or 86 Winchester.

Woodleigh merely used this same idea - or perhaps came upon it themselves - who knows - who cares? They work.

I had read about Harold's work and was cup-pointing soft nosed bullets that were too hard for the job I had for them many years ago and I'm sure other handloaders did the same.

Case in point were the 270gr.RN's for my wife's .375 Winchester Model 94 bought in 97, using cup-pointed bullets in it in 80 and 81 on moose. They worked just fine @ 1,800fps mv - - imagine that.

Getting back to the damage and results on big game - why is it a moose takes a .300 WTBY 180gr. or 200gr. through both lungs and drops dead on the spot - but the next time, exactly the same circumstances, runs 50 yards(the norm if not chased)and lays down to die, hidden in the bush. If chased, he might run 300 yards before feeling safe to lay down & die - takes a while to die in one case, and almost instantaneously in the other, - why?

I've noticed something different though, with the little .375 - the cup pointed 270's or 220gr. FN's through the lungs - 1 to 4 steps - dead - every time - why?

.735" or .684" round balls, same inpact, stagger sideways at impact, then down or down in 2 or 3 struggling, shakey steps - why?

Why does a big bull moose drop dead after only a 40 yard run after being holed by a .535" round ball? Autopsy shows both lungs and heart have only a permanent 1/2" hole through & through. Energy at impact - less than 220 FPE - dead long before the 300 mag. bullet which completely disintegrates heart and lungs - why?

I don't believe in any of the formulas, but diameter is important - it's more important than weight or speed as long as penetraion is suficient, that is - from what I've personally seen - the bigger the better.

Increased penetration is why I made a mould that would cast from 580gr. to 1,200gr. Hemispherical nosed bullets for my .69 Sporting Rifle

When the .69's round balls begin to fail to go through a moose, I might use some slugs - but I doubt that will EVER happen though.

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


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


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Homer
.416 member


Reged: 07/04/09
Posts: 3081
Loc: Canberra, Australia
Re: Views on Taylor Knockout (TKO) Formula [Re: DarylS]
      #175930 - 21/02/11 09:12 AM

G'Day Fella's,

Sorry but I haven't read the above replies, to this question on the TKO formular.

My experience is limited to the South Pacific species but I am of the belief that there are Two types of animals.
One that usually, is susceptible to Hydrostatic Shock from a fast expanding, High Velocity bullet (well over 2500+fps MV) and One that isn't?
The animals that aren't, seem to be more susceptible to a larger (bigger than .30cal), slow moving bullet with a muzzle velocity up to 2500fps?

Then you have the .300 Magnums that just seem to deck every thing that they are pointed at, without regard to any science, physics, TKO etc, etc!!!

These observations, are just that and not what I would call very scientific etc!

Hope this helps with the discussion.

Doh!
Homer

--------------------
"Beware the Lolly Pop of Mediocrity,
Lick it Once and You Will Suck Forever"


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



Extra information
1 registered and 53 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: 29305

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