Ok folks, can somebody shed some light on this theory? I googled it, searched on this sight, and I'm still left wondering a little. I get how the formula works, I read who came up with it, and why. However, its kinda skewed aint it? According to Taylor ko factor, my 44 has more ko power than a 30-06? I realize that range is a great factor, and no, I'm not cosidering the 44 as a 300 yd gun. How much faith, or real world results have any of yall seen concerning the TKO? I understand we've got some big bore junkies here, but I'm just curious how the taylor theory plays out? It really doesnt take into the equation any kind of expansion in a bullet. (Forgive me, but I use xtp's instead of hard cast) What I'm reading from this is, if I shot a bear with my 44 using 300 gr slugs at a snails pace of 1100fps,it should, according to the Taylor theory, get ko'd better than if I'd shot the same bear, in the same spot, at the same range, with a .30 caliber rifle at almost 3x the fps? Is that correct? I've seen deer shot with a 45acp and fall drt, and I've seen em run 200 yds when hit with a 300wm, absolutely, shot placement is key, but wow, this theory just got me to wondering.

Of course there are lots of factors that come into play with a particular shot such as bullet constuction and shot placement, but to my way of thinking the Taylor KO formula takes away the over emphasis of velocity in the energy formula and also gives some credit to caliber.

You mentiond expansion of the bullet. Many times this can be a minus as it will impede pentatration. It is better if you have a bullet that is big enough to begin with. Remember also that a 9 mm bullet may or may not expand but a 45 cal bullet will never shrink.

Here is an article by John Linebaugh on the subject. I like this quote from John,". We could shoot phonograph needles at the speed of light for, say, "20 tons" of energy and never stop anything bigger than a bull pack rat."

http://www.customsixguns.com/writings/common_sense_handgun_hunting.htm

What we are talking about here is terminal ballistics and here is some good futher reading on the subject.

http://www.frfrogspad.com/terminal.htm

I like the Taylor Knockout formula in that it doesn't take this mythical "energy" into account.

lets not go down this road again, this subject has been argued and beaten to death many times over.

I'm not, Rod, but when someone asks the opinion of others about the Taylor KO formula, I am compelled to tell you what I do like about it. Numbers on a box don't tell you how effective a cartridge/bullet combination is on game. You know that as well as I do. I'm not arguing.

Yet...

I think the KO is a nice reference for getting an approximate relationship from one chambering to another, but by no means is it anything to swear by.

I disagree that it doesn't take energy into account. It still uses mass x velocity in the equation but as Hank said, it doesn't give velocity as much weight and considers bullet diameter equally important. In my opinion neither energy nor TKO values can be used for much beyond a relative comparison of cartridges. I'm also of the opinion if you're hunting dangerous game (bears, elephant, buffalo, rhino) learn to shoot a big gun well because there isn't much of a substitute for bullet diameter but on the big stuff you do have to consider penetration. Many PH's will recommend a soft first followed by solids for buffalo and I imagine the same would hold for rhino and heart/lung shots on elephant. Bullet placement remains the single most important factor in any of this. Taylor's observations, which led him to the TKO formula, were derived to attempt to explain why some cartridges would knock out an elephant when the brain was missed by a small amount, while other rounds would not.

Riohondohank, those were some good links to read, I particularly liked the custom sixguns article. Thanks for posting those. Whitworth, that's what I was wondering about- the numbers on the box don't agree at all with the TKO theory. Energy in ft lbs, seems very dependent on speed, and the TKO way of thinking, just seems to depend on alot of ventilation due to a large hole in, and most likely, a large hole out on exit. I wasnt tryin to start a fuss, and I read enough here to know there's alot of big hole fans. I was just looking for real world info from folks who have used heavy slower slugs in handguns, instead of lightweight super fast slugs from rifles. I do find it funny that most "muzzle energy" proponents say a 30-30 rifle wont kill deer past 100 yds due to a slow bullet/no energy, and want to reccomend a 300wm for deer or black bear, but after reading on the Taylor KO scale, my 44, (within reasonable range of course), stands just as good a chance at cleanly taking deer, elk, or black bears as does a 30-06 rifle. Yall just have to forgive my curiosity / ignorance on handgun terminal ballistics, I just seriously started handgun only hunting last year, and only took one deer with it. It fell over like a sledgehammer hit it. Previous yrs, I generally hunted with a 30-06 and a few were drt, but a few managed to run/wander for a bit, after being hit well, in the heart/lungs with ALOT more ft/lbs than most handguns. The TKO seemed to make sense, but it also seemed just too easy. Thats what prompted my question about real world results, and how they fit against ft/lbs vs Taylor KO.

Kinda like drag racing? "No real substitute for cubic inches"?

You wanna start something?? LOL!

I agree it's not definitive by any stretch, but I like that it takes into account caliber and bullet weight, by default putting our handgun calibers in a better light terminally. If one uses energy figures, our poor handguns look mighty anemic -- and it doesn't tell the terminal performance story.

Why do I feel like an "I'm watching" post isn't to far in the future??

Bring it on ;-)

I agree with you. And it is amazing what a 1/2" diameter piece of lead can do even when pushed as slowly as we do. All those skinny bullets have to work twice as hard to get where we started out at. It is difficult to quantify.

what I was referring to was the reference to expanding and non expanding bullets because to assume this was developed with hardcast in mind would be absolutely false. John Pondoro Taylor was an elephant hunter looking for a better way of finding a calibers killing potential taking into consideration the bullet diameter. If you think about when he hunted the big guns of the time were 8-4 bore blackpowder smoothbore rifles and as I remember he also hunted elephant with the 303 and then moved up as the cartridges did. The bullets he was using were either soft lead round balls or conicals, or fmj or sp with soft lead cores. In other words all of these would at least distort if not flat out expand. You have to look at it during the time it was developed. I agree it's main asset is as a way of comparing calibers but there is really no accurate way to determine the terminal potential of any caliber because every shot and every animal is different.

you know the interesting thing is I was just reading an old (2008) Traditional Bowhunter magazine and it was talking about the ongoing battle between light and fast arrows or slow and heavy. It talked about how there have been hundreds of controlled experiments done with opposite results because you can generally make the results show what you want. The plain truth being why this author felt that the heavier arrows are better (which I agree with) that there are proponents of both and both sides have valid arguements. It got me to thinking about how just about everything we deal with in life has this kind of division and that if we each just do what works for us and not try and just let each do his own thing without criticism it would be a much mellower place. It's just like, fly fisherman vs bait fisherman, bowhunter vs gun hunters, ford vs chevy (Ford rules) and then we end up going past that to things like worms or roe, attractor flies vs matching the hatch, compound vs traditional, cut on contact broadhead vs chisel point, hardcast vs jacketed, and yes, even mag primers vs std primers. Anyone else light headed from all that? There are no hard and fast rules except that whichever car gets there first wins, which ever weapon, arrow, broadhead, bullet or primer you kill your animal with obviously worked.

That was all well said Rod.

We'll always find a way to agree to disagree about what we're in agreement with.

As a side note to the discussion, some have wondered as John Linebaugh does in his article what is the reason for using 7000 for the constant in the KO formula. I figure it is simply to convert the bullet weight from grains to pounds since there are 7000 grains in a pound. So the basis for the formula is bullet weight in pounds x caliber x velocity in fps.

your correct the 7000 is the conversion of grains to pounds and it was what John Taylor decided to use when he was developing the formula.

From my experiences I feel the TKO has a lot of merit. I have seen lots of bears taken close range with several different calibers in rifle and handguns. My handguns have been just as effective and in a few instances more so. I use to hunt with a Browning BAR 30-06 with a cut down barrel and 220gr Remington core-lokt ammo and it was extremely deadly at the ranges I used it(a few feet) but no more so than the 44mag ,45colt and a few other calibers used.

After some study I learned that "FORCE" is a factor in producing the wound channel and the amount of penetration. So for grins I calculated the force of various handgun rounds as well as a few rifle rounds. I used "Newtons force" which is bullet weight in 1 kg at meter per second and found that the amount of force is equal or higher than many of the rifle rounds.

Which explains the effectiveness that Cottonstalk experienced

Now I have a headache.....LOL

You want a headache, go pick a copy of modern exterior ballistics, I reacieved a copy not to long ago that will make your head spin,

+1 seasons44 interesting read but oh lord. bottom line math never killed nothing. there is no iron clad formula that will tell ya 100% of the time that X is so much better than Y

I think I have all this figured out. (For myself anyway)
Step 1- practice enough to be proficient with my 44.
Step 2- use good quality ammo for my 44.
Step 3- shoot some critters with my 44. (If i cross a T-rex, I may shoot twice)
Step 4- stop readin the web about a 44.


LOL! All the numbers and figures do seem a bit much.

THAT is exactly right Boot!

However, if ya come across a heard of the dreaded Woodchucks, you MUST use something bigger than a 458 Lott, otherwise I hear the lead just bounces off of them and really ticks them off!!!

Step 5 - Refer to the .44 Magnum as the .429 Magnum

Boot
the only steps you left out are,
5 practice some more
6 practice some more
7 then when you think you got it whipped,practice some more
step 3 should also read [if the critter is still standing shoot again]
when you care enough to send the very best bullet ,send two
[pay the insurance] shooting's fun,tracking ain't!

At least you should give them the benefit of the doubt of an extra .001 inch and call it a .43 Magnum.

there's proponents of all the various theories of how to qualify stopping power of various cartridges. taylor came up with his and his book is full of all sorts of examples of exceptions he saw to his own rule. it does do a reasonably good job of explaining how the handguns do compared to rifles though i feel rifles have been significantly more limited due to projectiles than pistols have and IF you use the right projectile a rifle is almost always more devastating. i.e. i've use 375 bullets that don't penetrate and hold together well, i've used tipped barnes that are absolutely devastating, same with my 460 weatherby. a failure of a caliber until modern bullets, now an absolutely devastating cablier and there's many reports of it using monometal flat point solids penetrating front to back in an elephant. so i agree with gary that shot placement is paramount and projectile choice is a definite second.

to put the taylor KO in perspective john elway throwing a football flat out has a higher ko value than any firearm. so do most bowlers tossing bowling balls.

Hahaha! I can't -- they simply need to face the reality of its diminutive stature.

Just kidding!

HAHA!! I agree with Whitworth... that extra .001 must be EARRRRRNED!!!!!


Also, just kidding!

http://www.hornady.com/store/44-Cal-.430-300-gr-HP-XTP/

Apparently , that extra .001, is already there.


The 44 magnum- avoiding carpal tunnel, smacked foreheads, and overcompensating for something , but killin critters just as dead, one round at a time........



LOL!!!!

If the big-bore guys are overcompensating, does that mean the .429 guys have simply accepted their inadequacies?

Kind of like when someone tells me about his S&W 50, I tell home that my handguns are .51 cal.

If I had to guess I would say that is what the bullet is size to by Hornady. Just like the 45 cal bullets are often sized to 454…