Thornily Stopping Power Calculator ? Accurate? Helpful?

[ProudOkie]

http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/thornily.htm?v1=183&v3=.308&v2=1425 (http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/thornily.htm?v1=183&v3=.308&v2=1425)

Anyone ever use this calculator? It tells me my 183 grain 30-30 cast load w 10 grains unique firing 1425fps has a score of 58, suitable to kill deer. Was curious if anyone ever uses that calculator.

[runfiverun]

nope I shoot stuff and determine it's suitable usefulness myself.

[dtknowles]

Calculators are only sort of useful. You get a feel for what has thump and what does not. That load would have limited useful range for deer and I would not consider it adequate for bigger deer even at only 100 yards. Even if cast from soft lead it would be questionable if it would expand, .30 dia. holes are small. Does the calculator take into account the size of the meplat? What is the bullet shape? I certainly would not expect a high proportion of Bang Flops.

Tim

[Wolfer]

nope I shoot stuff and determine it's suitable usefulness myself.

Im in this camp!

[birddog]

I have some resevation with the calculator as it comes up with a formula stating the 44mag with 300gr slug traveling along at 1360fps is not enough for elk and the likes of that size game. But on the contrary the 41mag shoving 255 gr at 1150fps will put an elk down with authourity. Oh and this one isn't good enough for a black bear.
Charlie

[Lead Fred]

Says my 45/70 will kill anything that walks on the planet

But I already knew that

[imashooter2]

A bowling ball rolled at 3 fps by a 5 year old has a score of 1,106.

The calculator might be flawed.

[OptimusPanda]

For fun I threw in the weight and diameter of a baseball. Then gave it a velocity of 100mph (146.66 fps). Says 405 relative stopping power. Sounds like good elephant medicine to me. :kidding:

[Al Bear]

I presume the 1425 fps is at the muzzle. if you use the foot/lbs energy calculator (same site) you'll see that that speed and weight gives you 825 foot/lbs of energy ...just a tad shy of the 900 ft/lbs required (at least in my book) for a clean kill of a deer. And that's at the muzzle. So anything farther than the muzzle will be inadequate. Mind you, at muzzle-range you could hit the deer in the eyeball between blinks and not even waste any eyelid meat. That would qualify as a really clean kill.

[Beerd]

"If numbers killed I would hunt with a calculator."

Must be true, I read it on the internet.
..

[Teddy (punchie)]

interesting , thanks for sharing.

Did think number(s) they came up with just didn't work out. I know what the gun I'm using is and loaded right it can kill anything but the very large animals and they keep saying right around 110 for all loads.

[osteodoc08]

Perhaps the Taylor Knock Out formula is a more accurate indicator of load lethality/power

[imashooter2]

The bowling ball mentioned above makes spectacular TKO numbers too.

[Mk42gunner]

For kicks I put in nominal numbers from a 4 bore rifle (1750 grains, 1.0" diameter, 1330 fps) and got 1121. That might suffice for rodents....

Robert

[JWT]

My 416 Rigby with factory Barnes 400gr solids at 2400fps scores 255. Just enough for Cape Buffalo and Elephant. The 22-250 with factory Barnes 50gr TSX bullets comes out at 37 which is not enough for an antelope. I have seen 22-250s take whitetails cleanly on many occasions. This calculator seems to underestimate the cartridge capabilities at least on the extreme ends.

[wch]

It isn't so much what you hit them with as it is where you hit them.

[GhostHawk]

I ran the numbers for my .357 mag handi rifle, and was a bit underwhelmed at the result. Then ran the numbers for a 7.62x54r 13 grains of Red Dot under a 185 gr cast boolit. According to the calculator, barely good for deer. So at the least I would say the calculator has a bias.

Good news is I ran data for my .444 marlin handi rifle and it will drop a deer.

I think it needs a little tweaking. It has a bias towards big bullets. Does not seem to like high velocity at all.

[Rick Hodges]

Not much impressed...says my .308 can't kill a bear. I know better. Definite bias towards big bullets. Also says a 7mm Rem Mag with 162gr. jword cant kill an elk either. It also says my 45/70 with 300 gr boolit is adequate for Lion and Brown Bear......I don't think so.
It seems to me that a lot of these calculator inventors need to try to correlate the results with real world experience and common sense.

[curioushooter]

It seems the calculator assumes that expansion of a bullet cannot be assumed (it says quite clearly UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES), hence it favors large diameter bullets. It is also on a website that sells cast bullets, not jacketed bullets.

To be truthful, almost every big game (by this I mean critters larger than DEER) hunter seems to eventually come around to the big hole theory of killing power. At least, I know of none that advocate for high velocity.

My observation is that velocity is useful for making GOOD shots at long range, since the greatest factor in trajectory under 300 yards is muzzle velocity. And narrow bullets have better ballistic coefficients, so hold their power better the farther out you go. I've never found estimating holdover or fiddling with scope turrets or sights to be a possibility when hunting. The opportunities to take a shot are often brief and the critter moves, making estimation a very crude affair. So the advantage to a high velociuty bullet in helping deliver good placement should not be overlooked.

But there is NO DOUBT in my mind that the BIG bullet theory is completely true. I've shot deer with 357 Mag, 30-30, 357 Herrett, 44 Mag and 12 Gauge slugs (427 grain, 72 caliber, going 1800 FPS), and heard reports from other people who have shot them with .223, .243, 6.5x55, and .30-'06. NOTHING even approaches a deer slug at close range it seems.

Every deer I've shot with a cast LEE SLUG has fallen over like a piano fell on them, and surprisingly, little damage to meat other than the BROOMSTICK-like hole going through them.

The biggest defect to these calculators is that they do not take into account sectional density very well it seems, which is a binary affair. Either the bullet gets through or it doesn't. For example, the most disappointing performance I've ever observed on deer has been the 44 MAG, yet it compares very favorably against 30-30 and 357 Herrett in the calculator. 44 suffers from being TOO BIG for its weight (if you use 240 grainers) IMO and I've never had one pass through. While 158 and 170 and 180 and 200 grain .358 bullets, launched from either a 357 Mag or Herrett have always passed through. The ONLY deer I've not recovered which I shot was from a 44 Mag. And I've played around with velocity, shooting it as low as 1200 FPS (NOT RECOMMENDED) and has high as 1600 FPS out of rifles. Never had a pass through. Not with "controlled expansion" XTPs or 265 Grain cast wheel wight bullets. And I perceive recoil to be far worst in 44 Mag, in both handguns and rifles, compared to 357 Mag, 357 Herrett, and 30-30. 30-30 is a very mild recoiling cartridge in rifles with 150 grain or lighter bullets. My 357 Herrett Contender is a pussycat compared to the Ruger Bisley Blackhawk (7.5" barrel) in 44 Mag I once owned. And my Mossberg 464 in 30-30 never recoiled as badly as did my Marlin 1894 in 44 Mag. They weigh exactly the same (6.5 lbs) and have exactly the same barrel length (20"). I installed a spongy Hogue recoil pad on my 1894 to try and quell the bite. Still worse than my 464 which just has a thin rubber pad.

Also, it places Black Bear in a class by itself to account for very large Black Bear. This is understandable to me. Also, though I've never hunted Elk, my relatives and friends who have, have reported back to me that they are much, much tougher than any Deer.

One cartridge that seems to really work well for this calculator is 45-70 in a strong action (like Ruger No1), which holds about the same amount of powder as a .30-'06. It is very hard to get this calculator to put .30-'06 above 120 (for Elk) past 100 yards. 45-70, with the same amount of powder, will do it easily all the way out to 200+ yards with a 500 grain bullet. And for shorter ranges reduced loads and 300-350 grain bullets make it good for deer, if a bit overkill.

I think that middle bores are are probably the most versatile and effective, balancing velocity with big hole effectiveness. 35 Whelen, if you punch it in to the calculator, has good scores over a wide range of velocities with the minimum about of powder expenditure (it always outperforms .30-'06, yet is nearly as flat out to 200 or so yards). Compared to 45-70 which at 300 may require a yard of holdover--making a good shot will be hard (for me at least). It DOESN'T matter what the calculator says if you MISS.

[softpoint]

I remind people, sometimes, that a properly placed arrow from my compound bow will kill anything. Not as quickly, as a bullet, but just as dead. Placement is everything.

[pashiner]

A while back, around the lunch table at work, we calculated the kinetic energy and TKO value of a 3500lb car hitting a deer at 25mph. As I remember it was astronomically high, but in real life, only effective in a 1 hit kill maybe 25% of the time. Good for a laugh 100% of the time.

[Abert Rim]

I know Pete Thorniley and he puts a lot of heart into firearms, hunting, casting and reloading. Best FFL receiver I ever dealt with.
Builds bass guitars and hands out Gideon Bibles in his spare time. God bless you Pete if you see this.
Your friend Bill Powell