• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Hydrostatic Shock/Remote Incapacitation

Haha! Thanks @Aftermath and @sirhrmechanic
I have needed a retard chamber a few times in my life.

So a large animal can obviously handle more “hydrostatic shock” than a small animal, (Or people), without catastrophic failure. Although failure can still happen with or without the shock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aftermath
Haha! Thanks @Aftermath and @sirhrmechanic
I have needed a retard chamber a few times in my life.

So a large animal can obviously handle more “hydrostatic shock” than a small animal, (Or people), without catastrophic failure. Although failure can still happen with or without the shock.
Shot placement matters.
So does bullet choice and performance.
If you do your part.
All day long.
 
So a large animal can obviously handle more “hydrostatic shock” than a small animal, (Or people), without catastrophic failure. Although failure can still happen with or without the shock.
I have thrown a ball of string at mice and they die on the spot when hit. I don't not know if it has anything to do with a psychical shock wave affect or just that they had a heart attack due to over stressing their little minds.
 
Haha! Thanks @Aftermath and @sirhrmechanic
I have needed a retard chamber a few times in my life.

So a large animal can obviously handle more “hydrostatic shock” than a small animal, (Or people), without catastrophic failure. Although failure can still happen with or without the shock.

If you read up top in one of my early posts in the thread... there is a difference between hydrostatic shock and temporary wound channel. Which is related to the hydrostatic (technically probably hydrodynamic shock, but perhaps mis-named per Texasrodent) but not exactly the same thing.

The umbrella topic we all should be considering is really neither (in the shooting world.) The topic or term is really terminal ballistics.

Somewhere on SH should be a primer that describes the three 'things' that concern us in ballistics:

First is internal ballistics. The physics and chemistry of what is happening from the moment of primer ignition until the moment the bullet exits the barrel. All the things that take place 'in' the barrel. From how brass expands into a chamber to how a bullet engages the rifling to how the barrel harmonics and dynamics works to actually launch the projectile.

The second is external ballistics. This is how the actual bullet interacts with the atmosphere. Aerodymics, wind, humidity, gravity, coriolis (yes, it matters at a certain point), spin drift. All that stuff.

Last is terminal ballistics. This is the physics of what happens the instant the tip of the bullet hits the target. Terminal ballistics isn't that important with steel or paper. It matters a lot when we are talking about hunting game or engaging in .mil or .LE work. And this is the physics (and physiology) of the effects of the bullets when they hit their target.

All of these are incredibly complex subjects. All, to one degree or another, are inter-related. And there are honestly so many variables, that we are talking about more permutations of 'ballistics' than can be computed reasonably. This is why it is ballistic science, not "do A, Get B" in a linear or simple-to-discern fashion. It's also what makes long-range and precision shooting such a fascinating and cerebral topic. And why it attracts such fantastic whack-jobs as we have in Snipers Hide trying to make enough sense of it all to put bullets consistently onto targets at insane ranges.

It's also what makes it such a great 'personal' sport and hobby (or profession.) It is you against Ballistics. To get a small projectile into an exact point in space and time... consistently. There's no excuses.... It's you vs. all kinds of variables that YOU have to overcome to meet that objective. It's not something you will ever solve. But it is something you can get better at and more consistent at. And have fun doing it.

So terminology aside... We are talking about terminal ballistics here. The final microseconds of a bullet's travel. And what happens during those microseconds as the bullet interacts with whatever medium it hits... from AR-500 steel to a cape buffalo's skull cap. It's all worth studying... but you'll never come up with an exact answer to that level of complexity.

Cheers, Sirhr
 
So terminology aside... We are talking about terminal ballistics here. The final microseconds of a bullet's travel. And what happens during those microseconds as the bullet interacts with whatever medium it hits... from AR-500 steel to a cape buffalo's skull cap. It's all worth studying... but you'll never come up with an exact answer to that level of complexity.

Cheers, Sirhr
100%
There could be VERY predictable and repeatable results on paper/steel/other homogeneous media. But nobody really cares beyond whether its an X or am 8.
It's when the tip of the bullet hits hair then skin then bone then organ....or maybe it misses a hair next time, or the angle is different when it contacts bone...that we care about. No way to account for every possible scenario. Maybe with some fantastic dedicated AI shit...doubt it.

When the bullet hits the bone, this is when any ethical hunter desires to have as predictable terminal ballistics as possible.
Hunting bullets begin to deform the instant they make contact with ANYTHING. Their flight may be altered. The jacket may begin to come apart.

I'll boil it down.

@232593
The magic velocity number for hunting bullet performance is 1800 fps. Sure, give or take 200, maybe, depending on the bullet, the game, whatever...but if you choose 1800 fps, you will be JUST FINE. Now...where does that 1800 fps matter?
AT THE TARGET. Your hunting bullet needs to impact the target animal at about 1800 fps or more. Less and bullet deformation is severely compromised.

Not to say that a straight up 45 caliber hole won't create enough loss of blood pressure to make that animal stop living.

Ethics come into play.

So does the critters will to live. I know I have had to pump some lead into deer and elk and most would seem to have been kill shots individually. I hate that shit, too.

Now...bullet choice DOES matter. For example, a 50 grain varmint bullet hitting a bull moose at 1800 fps is not likely to create an ethical one shot kill.
Ok, so which bullet?
Choose a bullet that will have AT LEAST as many foot lbs of energy at 1800 fps as the target animal live body weight. Better to err on the heavy side, too. Bullet weight retention and shit matters according to how fast you may need that critter to stop, especially if it might be coming for some payback.

Shot placement counts. If you kneecap a whitetail, you may never find it. A kneecap just might save your life from a Cape Buffalo but you are still going to need some follow up shots. Terminal ballistics and bullet performance be damned. Heart and lungs. Mammals need those. Real bad. And those things make a pretty large target, even when the adrenaline is pumping. 1800 fps with an appropriate sized hunting bullet in the lungs and heart and that mammal is not going to take many steps nor many more breaths.

There are, even on this forum, citations for these numbers from people who others respect and not some old jarhead from the oilpatch. I don't care to go dig them up.

And, even tho all this talk about water hammer and hydraulics and fluid dynamics and linear algebra and Laplace transformations actually COULD matter. It doesn't.
 
Last edited:
... ... ... the hydrostatic (technically probably hydrodynamic shock, but perhaps mis-named per Texasrodent) but not exactly the same thing.
Be careful coming up with new terminology (hydrodynamic Shock Wave) around this neck of the woods, as the inbreed hillbillies can not handle such and will bark at you excessively. Just saying.

And again, for the record, I got the terminology from "GunBlue409" in one of his YouTube Videos. I would not want people thinking I coined the phrase. I just heard him say it and thought it would be something interesting to share here.

As far as changing "The Texas R(ebel)A(gainst)T(yranny)" to "The Texas RODENT" you are not the first to have done so. And I've owned it every since another was trying to make fun of my Pen Name as well some 10 years ago as "The Texas R(ebel)O[n]D(uty)E(nsuring)N(o)T(yranny). Life's a Beach, enjoy every minute of it. So when life hands you a lemon, simply make some lemonade and enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Be careful coming up with a new terminology (hydrodynamic Shock Wave) around this neck of the woods, as the inbreed hillbillies can not handle such and will bark at you excessively. Just saying.

As far as changing "The Texas R(ebel)A(gainst)T(yranny)" to "The Texas RODENT" you are not the first to have done so. And I've owned it every since another was trying to make fun of my Pen Name as well some 10 years ago as "The Texas R(ebel)O(n)D(uty)E(nsuring)N(o)T(yranny). Life's a Beach, enjoy every minute of it. So when life hands you a lemon, simply make some lemonade and enjoy.

Well, at least that proves you aren't AI... ;-)

Sirhr
 
  • Like
Reactions: 232593
What is this Al... everyone keeps bring up anyway? Is that something like A(rtificial) I(ntelligence)...?
Dude.
This is a shooters forum dedicated to the art of the rifle.
Try to keep up.
AI is just shorthand for Accuracy International. Its a rifle company with debatable return on investment for the shooter.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: TheTexasRAT
100%
There could be VERY predictable and repeatable results on paper/steel/other homogeneous media. But nobody really cares beyond whether its an X or am 8.
It's when the tip of the bullet hits hair then skin then bone then organ....or maybe it misses a hair next time, or the angle is different when it contacts bone...that we care about. No way to account for every possible scenario. Maybe with some fantastic dedicated AI shit...doubt it.

When the bullet hits the bone, this is when any ethical hunter desires to have as predictable terminal ballistics as possible.
Hunting bullets begin to deform the instant they make contact with ANYTHING. Their flight may be altered. The jacket may begin to come apart.

I'll boil it down.

@232593
The magic velocity number for hunting bullet performance is 1800 fps. Sure, give or take 200, maybe, depending on the bullet, the game, whatever...but if you choose 1800 fps, you will be JUST FINE. Now...where does that 1800 fps matter?
AT THE TARGET. Your hunting bullet needs to impact the target animal at about 1800 fps or more. Less and bullet deformation is severely compromised.

Not to say that a straight up 45 caliber hole won't create enough loss of blood pressure to make that animal stop living.

Ethics come into play.

So does the critters will to live. I know I have had to pump some lead into deer and elk and most would seem to have been kill shots individually. I hate that shit, too.

Now...bullet choice DOES matter. For example, a 50 grain varmint bullet hitting a bull moose at 1800 fps is not likely to create an ethical one shot kill.
Ok, so which bullet?
Choose a bullet that will have AT LEAST as many foot lbs of energy at 1800 fps as the target animal live body weight. Better to err on the heavy side, too. Bullet weight retention and shit matters according to how fast you may need that critter to stop, especially if it might be coming for some payback.

Shot placement counts. If you kneecap a whitetail, you may never find it. A kneecap just might save your life from a Cape Buffalo but you are still going to need some follow up shots. Terminal ballistics and bullet performance be damned. Heart and lungs. Mammals need those. Real bad. And those things make a pretty large target, even when the adrenaline is pumping. 1800 fps with an appropriate sized hunting bullet in the lungs and heart and that mammal is not going to take many steps nor many more breaths.

There are, even on this forum, citations for these numbers from people who others respect and not some old jarhead from the oilpatch. I don't care to go dig them up.

And, even tho all this talk about water hammer and hydraulics and fluid dynamics and linear algebra and Laplace transformations actually COULD matter. It doesn't.
Do you think bullet fragmentation will enhance this effect to a degree? Some of the peer reviewed publications I read a few years back say yes some say no.
 
@Aftermath did you by chance get to read through Suneson’s Peripheral high-energy missile hits cause pressure changes and damage to the nervous system: experimental studies on pigs or the Strausburg Goat Trials? If so what did you think of their results? Suneson’s study didn’t seem to yield any solid evidence of the effect being able to cause incapacitation/death. However Dr. Courtney re analyzed it and stated pretty much the opposite of what Suneson concluded.

One also has to wonder how these previously mentioned effects manifest on human targets, we have all read of reports of people taking hit after hit and some not even knowing they were shot. Sometimes with high velocity rifle rounds at close range.

Thanks for all the good info you provided BTW.
 
Do you think bullet fragmentation will enhance this effect to a degree? Some of the peer reviewed publications I read a few years back say yes some say no.

Of course it does… now instead of a single piece causing energy transfer and shock waves and wound channels, you have multiple pieces.

Plus on “medium sized game” instead of a shoot through, you likely get all the “pieces” staying inside. This means 100 percent energy transfer as no energy will remain in an intact bullet that flies out the other side of the target, which is a waste of energy.

The perfect energy transfer would occur if a bullet passed through its target and the instant it exited it had 0 velocity and dropped to the ground. But so many variables prevent that, it’s unlikely.

That said on two (thick skinned) animals I shot over the years… my bison and a moose…. One of the bullets was under the skin on the far side of each. I still have them and consider that a perfect hit. One on the moose was a .458 Mag loaded down to .45/70 velocity. That was the moose. The other a full power .416 Taylor soft nose that plowed through a bison and one of the shots stopped under the skin.

If calculating effects of single projectile is chaotic… imagine figuring for fragments.

Last, remember the Glaser safety slug and the controversies it caused. No ricochets, but what a wound channel! And energy transfer from a .357 was rather devastating. So a lot of departments (their intended customers) would not use them for fear of public outcry. But hey, they worked!

The whole issue is also why the Geneva convention/accords ban soft nose projectiles in warfare. Trace the whole controversy back to the DumDum bullet. Which the Brits originated in Dumdum Arsenal in India! Another rabbit hole!


Last, studies of wound channels were made during the civil war and there are huge archives showing the medical tests and casts… all housed at the US Army medical museum in San Antonio. I know, because I looked into that archive on a paper research project. So the science has been going on for a long time!

I think there is still even a goat lab at a certain USArmy base that they keep under the radar not because it’s classified but to keep the activist fruitbats away. A few dead goats saved countless lives on battlefields for generations.

Sirhr
 
@TheTexasRAT you are new here. I would highly recommend you read this stickied thread.
Whenever I tell people about the Hide I generally tell people to stay out of the Bear Pit for a while. It's not for everyone.
 
Of course it does… now instead of a single piece causing energy transfer and shock waves and wound channels, you have multiple pieces.
Yes, but maybe no. Consider momentum. (Why momentum? Because it is momentum that carries a bullet through the very resistant media of living tissue.) An object in motion stays in motion. Momentum is an object’s resistance to a change in direction and speed. Momentum is calculated as mass times velocity.

If we ignore the change in entropy caused by breaking a projectile into fragments, we can say that the momentum of the intact projectile is equal to the sum of the momentum of all of the fragments. And, the momentum of any fragment is equal to the momentum of the whole, multiplied by the mass of that fragment divided by the total mass. And finally, the momentum of any fragment is proportional to its mass. All of this leads to the final observation that; as the number of fragments approaches infintiy, the mass of any one fragment approaches 0, as does the momentum of that fragment. As momentum goes to zero, so does penetration.

Fragmentation may have the ability to cause increased wounding, so long as the fragments retain sufficient mass (and therefore momentum) to drive far enough into the target to do that wounding. There are many MANY reports of deer sized game that had only “superficial wounding” after being hit by lightly constructed bullets at very high velocity. Arguably all purpose-built med-large game hunting bullets have “construction designed to mushroom but not fragment” as a selling point.

My final thoughts are regarding the long and widely held contention that “perfect bullet performance” consists of the bullet “dumping all of its energy and coming to rest under the skin on the far side.” That may well be the most efficient use of a bullet’s energy, but I’m not confident that efficiency equals ideal, and I’ll explain. First, that efficiency is great, unless your target is another 50 or 100 or whatever yards away. Now, the bullet that exhibits “perfect performance” at X yards may well no longer have sufficient momentum to drive through, or even to the vitals. Assuming the use of a well designed hunting bullet that expands as designed, punching through both sides of the animal and “perforating the scenery” gives margin for error when “the shot” is taken at more than the calibrated distance.

Additionally, two holes leak more than 1, and exit holes leak more than entrance holes. Ultimately, game animals expire due to a drop in blood pressure and blood loss that stops blood flow to the brain. Exit holes (again assuming acceptable bullet expansion) allow for faster blood loss than entrance holes. This puts the animal down faster, and aids in blood trailing. (The only sure way to “anchor” an animal on the spot is a CNS hit) Those of us crippled with color blindness need all of the help with blood trailing that we can get.

I leave you with a couple of photos from my deer harvest from this year.

Entrance wound circled in yellow.
IMG_5723.jpeg


Exit wound highlighted in red…
IMG_5722.jpeg
 
Do you think bullet fragmentation will enhance this effect to a degree? Some of the peer reviewed publications I read a few years back say yes some say no.
Again, not a biologist nor an MD. Petroleum Engineer here. But terminal ballistics use to really interest me. I studied but eventually realized there are just too many variables to reliably predict every time under every circumstance.
Bullet deformation could lead to bullet fragmentation. Both disperse energy from the bullet into the target media. Ideally, 100% of the energy carried by the bullet would be transferred to the target. This only happens when the bullet does not exit.
Back to the 50 gr varmint bullet and a bull moose at 1800 fps. That 50 gr bullet spent all of its energy into the moose but did not do sufficient damage to create an ethical first round kill. Why not? The bullet reacted exactly as it was designed. Maybe it even fragmented into 300 pieces. Why would it not reliably create an ethical first round kill?
This goes back to penetration and wounding and shot placement. We are trying to create a rapid loss of blood pressure. Ok...sure...some are trying for that magical CNS hit that turns everything off instantly. Anyone who has hunted more than one species for any amount of time knows that they have seriously wounded critters they did not reclaim using that strategy. Head and neck shots work, no argument. They also don't work very often.
The energy of the bullet needs to be dispersed over as long a period of time as is possible in that target media. Penetration. Ideally, the bullet would lodge in the hair on the opposite side, having spent 100% of it's energy along the way. Deforming and becoming larger, maybe fragmenting, along the way. Hopefully, for the ethical hunter, the wound created causes a serious loss of blood pressure.
@Aftermath did you by chance get to read through Suneson’s Peripheral high-energy missile hits cause pressure changes and damage to the nervous system: experimental studies on pigs or the Strausburg Goat Trials?
I read the goat thing a while back. I have not and am not likely to read the pressure study. I've already addressed the pressure spikes. That cannot be healthy for a mammal. However, I can't see that pressure alone could be a reliable way to incapacitate. I know of a reliable way to incapacitate a mammal. Make it lose blood and make it hard to breathe. Heart and lung shots work very reliably and repeatably. Because mammals. All of the studying I have done, both theoretical and practical, has resulted in the 1800 fps projectile at the target with enough energy to outweigh the target placed into the lungs and heart.
IMG_6477.jpeg
This little deer expired very rapidly. MASSIVE loss of blood. It looked like a faucet on high. Not only that, she couldn't breathe very good at all and her heart couldn't pump. If you were guessing, that is an exit wound. The other side has a little .284" hole.
IMG_6505.jpeg
I am not even going to discuss momentum.
 
Again, not a biologist nor an MD. Petroleum Engineer here. But terminal ballistics use to really interest me. I studied but eventually realized there are just too many variables to reliably predict every time under every circumstance.
Bullet deformation could lead to bullet fragmentation. Both disperse energy from the bullet into the target media. Ideally, 100% of the energy carried by the bullet would be transferred to the target. This only happens when the bullet does not exit.
Back to the 50 gr varmint bullet and a bull moose at 1800 fps. That 50 gr bullet spent all of its energy into the moose but did not do sufficient damage to create an ethical first round kill. Why not? The bullet reacted exactly as it was designed. Maybe it even fragmented into 300 pieces. Why would it not reliably create an ethical first round kill?
This goes back to penetration and wounding and shot placement. We are trying to create a rapid loss of blood pressure. Ok...sure...some are trying for that magical CNS hit that turns everything off instantly. Anyone who has hunted more than one species for any amount of time knows that they have seriously wounded critters they did not reclaim using that strategy. Head and neck shots work, no argument. They also don't work very often.
The energy of the bullet needs to be dispersed over as long a period of time as is possible in that target media. Penetration. Ideally, the bullet would lodge in the hair on the opposite side, having spent 100% of it's energy along the way. Deforming and becoming larger, maybe fragmenting, along the way. Hopefully, for the ethical hunter, the wound created causes a serious loss of blood pressure.

I read the goat thing a while back. I have not and am not likely to read the pressure study. I've already addressed the pressure spikes. That cannot be healthy for a mammal. However, I can't see that pressure alone could be a reliable way to incapacitate. I know of a reliable way to incapacitate a mammal. Make it lose blood and make it hard to breathe. Heart and lung shots work very reliably and repeatably. Because mammals. All of the studying I have done, both theoretical and practical, has resulted in the 1800 fps projectile at the target with enough energy to outweigh the target placed into the lungs and heart. View attachment 8297070This little deer expired very rapidly. MASSIVE loss of blood. It looked like a faucet on high. Not only that, she couldn't breathe very good at all and her heart couldn't pump. If you were guessing, that is an exit wound. The other side has a little .284" hole.View attachment 8297079I am not even going to discuss momentum.

Agreed! And with Hlee.

Fragmentation does guarantee 100 percent energy transfer but energy does not translate into (necessarily) enough wound channel or enough hydrostatic pressure/ shock.

And why you won’t kill a moose with a .17 Remington. Probably. At least not humanely.

That said, if you take a .17 solid and accelerate it up to 10k fps… you probably will kill a moose. I know because in labs we did things with hyper velocity projectiles/stepped charges and steel plates. And plate that would bounce a .50 ap would end up with a hole you could stick a grapefruit in when hit with hyper velocity darts of very small sizes. I think those studies are published as well. Of course carrying a 2 ton gun the size of a Mini Cooper a computerized ignition system is not useful for hunting, either. So there is that!

This is why the discussion is so interesting. And so complex…

Taken Out of the realm of simple (ha!) rifle ballistics and expanded into shell ballistics, it is also why shell splinters are so deadly. Tiny pieces of metal at the velocities imparted by high explosive fillers do nasty things, too. There you can have tiny pieces of metal a massive velocity and the terminal effects are rather gruesome.

Again, all Good discussion and a good thread when it started. Still a good thread. Don’t dump too hard on Texas-dude. He had legit points.

We were all new once!

Sirhr
 
Last edited:
Agreed! And with Hlee.

Fragmentation does guarantee 100 percent energy transfer but energy does not translate into (necessarily) enough wound channel or enough hydrostatic pressure/ shock.

And why you won’t kill a moose with a .17 Remington. Probably. At least not humanely.

That said, if you take a .17 solid and accelerate it up to 10k fps… you probably will kill a moose. I know because in labs we did things with hyper velocity projectiles/stepped charges and steel plates. And plate that would bounce a .50 ap would end up with a hole you could stick a grapefruit in when hit with hyper velocity darts of very small sizes. I think those studies are published as well. Of course carrying a 2 ton gun the size of a Mini Cooper a computerized ignition system is not useful for hunting, either. So there is that!

This is why the discussion is so interesting. And so complex…

Taken Out of the realm of simple (ha!) rifle ballistics and expanded into shell ballistics, it is also why shell splinters are so deadly. Tiny pieces of metal at the velocities imparted by high explosive fillers do nasty things, too. There you can have tiny pieces of metal a massive velocity and the terminal effects are rather gruesome.

Again, all Good discussion and a good thread when it started. Still a good thread. Don’t dump too hard on Texas-dude. He had legit points.

We were all new once!

Sirhr
Speed definitely kills. Foot pounds of energy. E=0.5mv^2
This is the main reason there are bullet weight and/or velocity limits on many ranges and shooting sports. Target damage.

For many years the Navy was investigating an electrically accelerated minute plastic particle at near the speed of light. Testing showed great promise. Imagine an aircraft carrier taken out with a piece of plastic the size of a BB with a single hit. Conjecture lead to shooting down spacecraft with the thing. I think the practicality of the system proved to be too difficult. I would not be surprised at shore based systems becoming a legit thing. It would be sorta cool to have something shoulder fired. Maybe Elon can get on that bandwagon. Probably have to have an entire squad of battery bearers or something.

Then, of course, @Bender, there are laser beams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 232593
One last thing...the picture of the little deer.
That was a 140 gr bullet hitting that deer at about 175 yards, about 2900 fps on impact, about 2600 foot pounds of energy at the target. Well placed shot :cool: using a purpose designed bullet. 280 Ackley 140 VLD hunting bullet leaving at 3250. High speed low drag...
I did a head shot last year, first time in many years, instant down but that wound was so terrifying that I just don't want to see it again. Plus, now I have my wife going out with me because I own some property and have a heated shooting shack rigged up. I definitely don't want her to see that and be disgusted and not come out with me. And, it does go against the philosophy developed over 50 years of shooting meat critters. I still go for head shots on varmint and vermin and I will take one on a coyote if it happens to be still for long enough.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 232593
Yes, but maybe no. Consider momentum. (Why momentum? Because it is momentum that carries a bullet through the very resistant media of living tissue.) An object in motion stays in motion. Momentum is an object’s resistance to a change in direction and speed. Momentum is calculated as mass times velocity.

If we ignore the change in entropy caused by breaking a projectile into fragments, we can say that the momentum of the intact projectile is equal to the sum of the momentum of all of the fragments. And, the momentum of any fragment is equal to the momentum of the whole, multiplied by the mass of that fragment divided by the total mass. And finally, the momentum of any fragment is proportional to its mass. All of this leads to the final observation that; as the number of fragments approaches infintiy, the mass of any one fragment approaches 0, as does the momentum of that fragment. As momentum goes to zero, so does penetration.

Fragmentation may have the ability to cause increased wounding, so long as the fragments retain sufficient mass (and therefore momentum) to drive far enough into the target to do that wounding. There are many MANY reports of deer sized game that had only “superficial wounding” after being hit by lightly constructed bullets at very high velocity. Arguably all purpose-built med-large game hunting bullets have “construction designed to mushroom but not fragment” as a selling point.

My final thoughts are regarding the long and widely held contention that “perfect bullet performance” consists of the bullet “dumping all of its energy and coming to rest under the skin on the far side.” That may well be the most efficient use of a bullet’s energy, but I’m not confident that efficiency equals ideal, and I’ll explain. First, that efficiency is great, unless your target is another 50 or 100 or whatever yards away. Now, the bullet that exhibits “perfect performance” at X yards may well no longer have sufficient momentum to drive through, or even to the vitals. Assuming the use of a well designed hunting bullet that expands as designed, punching through both sides of the animal and “perforating the scenery” gives margin for error when “the shot” is taken at more than the calibrated distance.

Additionally, two holes leak more than 1, and exit holes leak more than entrance holes. Ultimately, game animals expire due to a drop in blood pressure and blood loss that stops blood flow to the brain. Exit holes (again assuming acceptable bullet expansion) allow for faster blood loss than entrance holes. This puts the animal down faster, and aids in blood trailing. (The only sure way to “anchor” an animal on the spot is a CNS hit) Those of us crippled with color blindness need all of the help with blood trailing that we can get.

I leave you with a couple of photos from my deer harvest from this year.

Entrance wound circled in yellow.
View attachment 8297015

Exit wound highlighted in red…
View attachment 8297016
Nicely done. What range, caliber, MV, & bullet weight?

That an S&B on that rifle?
 
@TheTexasRAT you are new here. I would highly recommend you read this stickied thread.
Whenever I tell people about the Hide I generally tell people to stay out of the Bear Pit for a while. It's not for everyone.
I may have a tender heart, but I have thicker skin, and nothing here has offended me, nor does anyone got what it takes to do so (here or anywhere else). But I will say it seems as if some here got their panties in a wad.

And while I am dead serious when it come to safety issues, I'm a jokester at heart. And slap-stick sarcasm is one of my favorite ways to communicate.

And I couldn't care less as to all the BS flapping jaws around here, my only fear is that I might accidently go over the allotted 20 post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aftermath
I may have a tender heart, but I have thicker skin, and nothing here has offended me, nor does anyone got what it takes to do so (here or anywhere else). But I will say it seems as if some here got their panties in a wad.

And while I am dead serious when it come to safety issues, I'm a jokester at heart. And slap-stick sarcasm is one of my favorite ways to communicate.

And I couldn't care less as to all the BS flapping jaws around here, my only fear is that I might accidently go over the allotted 20 post.
In that case you sound like you might be ready to try to learn about some of the inside jokes (concrete work, bow kills, and others). Search for the "Legendary Thread Reference". Enjoy laughing.
 
GunBlue490 covers it in his video below. If you do not want to view the whole video, at least listen to the first minute and a half. Then one could skip to 56:15-1:00:15

I got a kick out of his jet ski analogy.
He obviously has not ridden jet skis much?

127mph and very little wake.
 
Last edited:
True. He has probably forgotten more than I have ever know about the main subject as well. I’m here to learn.
He covered the subject far better in another one of his videos, but I got the flu right now and do not have the energy to go through them all to find it. Anyway in this video he said 2600fps. That is in flesh that can stretch and snap back. At the 2600fps mark it stretches the flesh past its elastic abilities and tears the flesh apart some six inches or so. But yes there is a Hydro-Kinetic shock wave going on at slower speeds, just not extreme enough to stretch the flesh far enough to tear it. Apparently no one wants to admit it's existence unless it leave an exacerbated wound channel.
 
GunBlue490 covers it in his video below. If you do not want to view the whole video, at least listen to the first minute and a half. Then one could skip to 56:15-1:00:15

Now I know why you are so full of shit . Using gunblue as a teacher, laughable . I see it now, you model yourself after him . Bullshit artist that screams for attention . :rolleyes:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TheTexasRAT
Lots to consider.

In defensive handguns I don’t think it is significant. That said, in a closed inflexible pressure vessel (the head) it can be. I remember a story about a trooper who shot a guy in the head with a 357m and it blew an eye out that the bullet never was very close too. In center mass, I don’t think secondary wounding is much of a thing with standard handgun velocities. Plenty of video of men taking multiple center mass hits and continuing to function for a bit.

Rifles? Yeah a rifle and fragging projectile will do ugly shite.
 
Now I know why you are so full of shit . Using gunblue as a teacher, laughable . I see it now, you model yourself after him . Bullshit artist that screams for attention . :rolleyes:
I told you about GunBlue490 the other day, and you just now figured out who I said I got it from. Damn you are slow.

As far as screaming for attention like a little sissy bitch, you are the only one I hear whinnying, cause I challenged you to use your mind which apparently you can not handle cause of the lack of intelligence to the point you talk trash thinking it makes you seem like a real man, but instead it just shows the lack of mentality on your part. If you had anything intelligent to say you would have done so already. The lack of intelligent communication on your part just shows how mentally dwarfed you are.

P.S. - Being I know already that you can not under stand what it is I just said, so I'll put it another way - Just go back to jerking yourself until you grow up and can learn to have a real conversation. Cause listening to you is a joke, and not a funny one at that.

P.S., P.S. - Here is one I think would be right up your mentality to get: Nanny, nanny boo boo, go stick you head in doo doo! Now you got to admit that you understood exactly what I am telling you this time. No ambiguity there! Ops, my bad you already got you head up your a-hole.
 
Last edited:
GunBlue490 covers it in his video below. If you do not want to view the whole video, at least listen to the first minute and a half. Then one could skip to 56:15-1:00:15


Please Sir, find a different champion than Gunblow. He speaks on a position of authority for a lot of subjects with which he has no experience. What happens is that he is able to articulate incorrect positions well enough to convince himself and others who don't know better...and then there is an entire following that regurgitate the same bad info. Enter Ron Spomer, The Real Gunsmith etc...

I watched your segment. He immediately fucked up hydraulic shock with hydrostatic shock. In a single sentence: One is the additional crushing/tearing of tissue in the temporary to permanent wound cavity, while the other is an overpressure of the circulatory system. There is much more than that, but this should get your search back on track.
 
Please Sir, find a different champion than Gunblow. He speaks on a position of authority for a lot of subjects with which he has no experience. What happens is that he is able to articulate incorrect positions well enough to convince himself and others who don't know better...and then there is an entire following that regurgitate the same bad info. Enter Ron Spomer, The Real Gunsmith etc...

I watched your segment. He immediately fucked up hydraulic shock with hydrostatic shock. In a single sentence: One is the additional crushing/tearing of tissue in the temporary to permanent wound cavity, while the other is an overpressure of the circulatory system. There is much more than that, but this should get your search back on track.
I'll take that with a grain of salt, as I continue in my studies, but from what I found so far they are all saying the same thing except the speed varies from 2200 to 2400 to 2600.

Personally, I don't watch Spomer or the real gunsmith. Not calling them idiots, I just don't like their style.
 
  • Like
Reactions: diggler1833
It is a hard subject to test accurately, so there will be many arguments made with many small errors sprinkled throughout the correct information.

I do not claim to know anything, but I have shot enough living things to believe in the theory of hydrostatic shock. My example is that approximately 20% of the hogs I shoot through the vitals with a .308 die just as if I had shot them in the CNS...zero run, just a bang - flop. Plus they kick and run just like you turned their brain off.

I also believe in hydraulic shock, as I have seen shots through the neck muscle (that miss the vertebrae) still disrupt the CNS.

One of many videos where I saw hydrostatic shock (dropped in place without hitting any CNS points). Skip to the 1:30 mark to avoid unnecessary rambling.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Towhead
Hydraulic may be just as accurate of a descriptor. Fluids don’t really compress so a force imparted can damage things away from the impact. It is IMO not an accurate science, more of a phenomenon. I killed a deer once where one pellet hit her spine (none of the rest connected) and dropped her like a rock. I killed one where a perfectly placed 25/06 liquified her heart and it ran 50 yards.

As said earlier placement and dumb luck…

I’m a believer in stacking as many factors as possible in my favor but after a point there is diminishing returns on almost everything.
 
Hydraulic may be just as accurate of a descriptor. Fluids don’t really compress so a force imparted can damage things away from the impact. It is IMO not an accurate science, more of a phenomenon. I killed a deer once where one pellet hit her spine (none of the rest connected) and dropped her like a rock. I killed one where a perfectly placed 25/06 liquified her heart and it ran 50 yards.

As said earlier placement and dumb luck…

I’m a believer in stacking as many factors as possible in my favor but after a point there is diminishing returns on almost everything.
I haven't been able to figure it out.

1st deer I killed was with 3" mag 00 at 15 yards. 12 pellets thru his heart & lungs, 3 of them thru his shoulder, he ran 20 yards.

Another for example, .30-30 thru the lungs at 50 yards, DRT. Just fell down dead.