Yes you can.
I personally would prefer the "low-end standard .44 Mag loads." By "low-end," I certainly did not mean anything disparaging. I was just pointing out that the hottest 10mm loads are almost, but not quite, as powerful (in terms of energy) as the weakest .44 mag loads.
As to energy being meaningless, I invite you to read the following linked work, which is about 100-150 pages long when printed. It made me rethink my positions and beliefs and change several of my opinions I had held for decades, such as the reasons why a wide meplat bullet may penetrate more than a smaller one, and the impact of hydrodynamic pressure as creating a permanent cavity rather than "hydrostatic shock." The author so comprehensively analyzes every aspect of the terminal effects of bullets, I find him rather convincing on almost every issue. It’s possible that you also might find it convincing, and, if like me, you are not completely resistant to changing your opinions, it might have that effect on a few of yours.
I’m not saying you or anything else should read it, and I think I understand the view that some people hold that, “who cares, just shoot” etc… I just personally find the topic of the science behind bullet trauma (and many other things) very interesting. And there is a science to it.
The author’s data on bullet penetration and cavitation are based on hundreds if not thousands of experimental examples from himself and others, including Askins and the like. He sets that out and graphs it. I haven’t even finished reading all of that.
Before you get excited, his basic premise is not very pro-energy, and he repeatedly criticizes those who rely on it too much:
"Plainly stated, I maintain that the effect of bullets upon living targets is caused by the wound track made by the bullet. Now, before you accuse me of being a wise guy, recall that most theoretical explanations of wounding are tied to the kinetic energy or momentum or some other such physical quantity of the bullet which is 'transferred' or imparted to the target. My theory recognizes these characteristics, but relies upon a fundamentally different premise, which is that two physically equivalent wound tracks in a game animal will have an equivalent effect, no matter how different were the kinetic energies or other physical attributes of the bullets which caused them. There are some extremely rarely encountered exceptions to the general rule, but for most purposes the hole caused by a bullet is its only measure of lethality." http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html
"Wounding is caused by the force exerted by a bullet to displace tissue. The exertion of force in displacing tissue requires an expenditure of energy, and translates into damage to the tissue in the form of penetration and cavitation as the elastic limits of the tissue are exceeded by the stresses imparted from this force. According to Cranz' Law, the kinetic energy of a non-deforming projectile is proportional (in a non-elastic medium) to the volume displaced by penetration and cavitation. But the quantity of kinetic energy alone does not tell us enough to predict the dimensions of this cavity. Reality differs. Real bullets generally deform and real tissue is extremely elastic. In understanding the interaction of the bullet with the target, it is helpful to consider the water analogy. The higher the impact velocity of a projectile, the greater the initial resistance. This is what I call the 'splash effect,' and is true of all solids when the stresses placed upon them overcome their intrinsic rigidity and cause them to behave like a fluid. It is easier to push your hand into water than to slap into it. Pushing slowly, you can penetrate deeper with less effort (energy) than by slapping at a high velocity. However, by slapping you make a bigger splash in the water (cavitation). These are exactly the basic mechanisms which govern terminal ballistics in living tissue. Understanding how the kinetic energy of a bullet contributes to wounding, we can consider the separate components of wounding..
Throughout the article, the author points out that the KE of a projectile often is not predictive because of all of the other variable in play--he discusses them all. He explains how a wide meplat 45-70 can out-perform what it's KE predicts. Read it if you like. He does note that:
"In theoretical terms, a projectile creates a cavity which is proportional to its kinetic energy (actually, the permanent volume of the cavity may be considerably less than the theoretical expected volume). The cavity extends radially (what I term cavitation) and along the path of the bullet (penetration). The more it cavitates, the less deeply it penetrates. High velocity can have a detrimental effect upon penetration in a fluid, due to the 'splash effect.' It can destroy the bullet or cause it to create an enormous cavity without penetrating (which is not necessarily undesirable in certain tactical situations). ... Against hard solid targets, such as armor or heavy bones, high impact velocity is the most important factor contributing to maximum penetration (assuming that the bullet remains intact), because this has a shattering effect upon the material. Maximum penetration in a fluid medium, however, is achieved when cavitation is held to a minimum, as in the case of a non-deforming, round-nosed bullet travelling at "moderate" velocity. Heavy big-bore, flat-nosed, hard-cast lead-alloy bullets are favored by handgun hunters for large game because they are more efficient than jacketed soft points. The broad flat nose on the relatively large caliber bullet provides adequate cavitation, so expansion isn't necessary. Since there is no expansion, there is also no energy lost to bullet deformation all of the remaining kinetic energy of the extra-heavy bullet is directed toward penetration with acceptable cavitation. ...
Cavitation is caused by two sources: mechanical crushing and hydrodynamic pressure.
Mechanical crushing occurs directly in the path of penetration and is caused by the undeformed bullet nose or the expanded bullet 'mushroom.' At low velocities, flat or sloping surfaces merely push tissue aside. However, at higher velocities, tissue is macerated. For rigid solid bullets, a flat nose shape with a broad meplat (the flat portion of the bullet nose) will create a larger crushed cavity than a semi-spitzer or round nose shape. For expanding bullets, a broad and nearly flat expanded bullet shape will create a larger crushed cavity than an expanded "mushroom" with a classic round shape with gently sloping edges. Although an expanded bullet may have a diameter of 0.55 to 0.75 inch (14 to 19 mm), the effective meplat diameter is rarely more than the nominal bore diameter.
Hydrodynamic pressure causes damage from the pressure induced radial velocity extending from the stagnation point at the point of the bullet in its axis of travel to the outer edges of the bullet. The tissue velocity is zero at the infinitessimal point of the bullet nose, where the hydrodynamic pressure has its highest value. The velocity with which the tissue is displaced by this pressure is a function of the angle between the axis of penetration and the bullet nose (see the figure below). If the angle is small, the radial displacement velocity is small. For this reason, a larger diameter, flatter expanded bullet is more effective in producing cavitation from hydrodynamic pressure than a smaller diameter, steeply sloped bullet shape. Because the tissue velocity is also proportional to the velocity, the cavitation can be much larger than the actual diameter of the bullet. This is how a .50 inch (13 mm) diameter expanded bullet can create a 1.5+ inch (39 mm+) permanent hole in game. "
"There is a myth to the effect that a bullet which remains inside a target is more effective (in terms of stopping or killing power) than one which completely penetrates. ... [he explains]"
"The rate of energy transfer to the target is vastly more important than the quantity of energy transferred. This is the technical definition of power. Anyone sunbathing on a clear summer day at the beach will receive an irradiance equivalent to over 4600 ft-lbs every minute! Eventually, this bombardment by extremely high velocity particles will result in sunburn, but the body can withstand the energy it receives because it is spread over a large area and arrives at a relatively slow rate (compared with bullets). The power and intensity (power per unit area) is much less than ballistic events.
The other popular contemporary misconception results from the assumption that the kinetic energy of the bullet is 'transferred' to the target, thereby somehow killing it through 'hydrostatic shock.'
I don't know where this term originated, but it is pseudoscience babble. In the first place, these are dynamic - not static - events. Moreover, 'hydrostatic shock' is an oxymoron."
“An important fact to remember is that not all energy is ‘created equal.’ … However, simply because a quantity of kinetic energy is not, in and of itself, enough to describe the wounding characteristics of our weapons does not imply that kinetic energy is not a valid measure of ballistic performance. We need not be reactionary or suppose that someone got it wrong and that what we need is a better ‘formula.’” http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/myths.html
“It's as if the cancerous pseudoscience of gun writers has spread to corrupt even the hallowed precepts of true science. I shouldn't make it seem as if the author of [a referenced] particular article were alone in his assumptions. The history of popular terminal ballistics in the 20th century saw several examples of this kind of crackpot science, such as Elmer Keith's ridiculous invention of ‘pounds-feet.’ What is most astounding about this latest outrage against science and clear reasoning is that the (long since departed) editors of the magazine didn't know enough themselves to prevent its publication. I expect this sort of thing in cyberspace, but I expect a higher standard from publishers (incidentally, the present editorial staff has a much more scientifically founded perspective). Men like Townsend Whelen knew their basic science and would not have made such errors, nor permitted them to be published in their journal. It troubles me that our knowledge has diminished so much in 70 years.
When gun writers attempt to describe terminal ballistics in terms more technical than ‘wallop’ they take on the mantle of science and bear the responsibility to their readership to convey an accurate discussion of the mechanisms involved. Science does not merely belong to scientists nor only in the realm of the scientific journal. It is truth on a fundamental level. There are no "everyday" meanings to terms such as velocity, momentum, kinetic energy and impulse. They are not slang or jargon used to describe nebulous, ill-defined concepts. They hold precise meanings. To carelessly misuse scientific language is to render a disservice to the readership, even though it be predominately composed of non-technical readers. … If the average shooter doesn't know what is wrong with the following tidbits then this country has more serious problems than confusion about terminal ballistics:
'The upshot is that the kinetic energy formula is neither correctly labeled as to resulting units, nor particularly accurate in describing projectile energy. I get the feeling that it is used very little outside the ballistics field. [emphasis added] If it were, it would likely have been changed long ago... In the KE formula we have something that is provably wrong in regard to the foot-pounds label...' (pg. 62)
... The author displays an appalling incomprehension of junior high mathematics and general science, confusing a quantity squared with one doubled and the operation of addition with multiplication, using the terms energy, ‘impulse energy’ (his own invention), momentum and force interchangeably, confusing rate with duration, and then has the incredible arrogance to unequivocally assert that 300 years of scientific inquiry is deluded, but that he perceives the truth of projectile motion. …
This kind of tabloid quality ‘science’ is overtaking the firearms community. In the age of bioengineering, quantum electronics and relativistic physics, the firearms community is becoming mired in a level of scientific ignorance comparable to Medieval Europe. The truth is not marketable but crackpot theories about better formulas for kinetic energy warrant feature articles. Falsehood and error need to be corrected. Those of us who care about the quality of the literature and the accuracy of the inquiry into terminal ballistics bear the responsibility to repudiate the nonsense and to authoritatively instruct concerning the facts. …
Just in case somebody doesn't know, foot-pounds are a real quantity and can be converted into BTUs, Joules, kilowatt-hours, calories, ergs, electron-volts or any other measure of energy as you please. All of these resolve down to the same fundamental quantities of mass times distance (divided by time) squared. Not all energy is the same, but all energy has the same fundamental units. Kinetic energy was not invented for the delight of gun writers. The different definitions of energy are based upon inter-related physical laws, none of which have been overturned since God created the universe, let alone in the last century.”
“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.
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 … 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). … 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.” http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/myths.html
There’s more ...
See Emprical Methods: http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b...s/methods.html
And Analytical Modeling: http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b.../modeling.html