- Thread starter 232593
- Start date
Think it really comes down to if your using a 9mm vs 45
Everyone know the 9mm blows the lungs right out.
This has been a long running debate. Lots of information out there.
www.themeateater.com
Is Hydrostatic Shock Real?
In a 1942 edition of Popular Mechanics, an article titled “Super Speed Bullets Knock ‘Em Dead” describes a new wunderkind cartridge that launches a .22-caliber projectile an astounding 5,400 feet per second. The bullet maintains a flat trajectory out to 400 yards, but its real benefit—something...
I don't know about hydrostatic shock/remote wounding but have heard that a near miss of any caliber can cause uncontrollable release of the bladder and/or bowels in some people.
Indeed it has, the best ones were in 08 when that Dr. Courtney guy dropped onto all the firearm related forums claiming “shock” & TBI like symptoms were possible at damn near all velocities. Then he went completely silent shortly afterwards. Odd.This has been a long running debate. Lots of information out there.
Is Hydrostatic Shock Real?
In a 1942 edition of Popular Mechanics, an article titled “Super Speed Bullets Knock ‘Em Dead” describes a new wunderkind cartridge that launches a .22-caliber projectile an astounding 5,400 feet per second. The bullet maintains a flat trajectory out to 400 yards, but its real benefit—something...
shocking and under water and citizens get in trouble when they fish with m80's or 1/4th sticks of dynamite
Yes... up until the point that your target is large enough that it isn't.
"When is that?" is like your velocity threshold question. It's 60% it depends and 40% who knows.
It always seemed to me to be a complete crapshoot on whether the big game shot would drop or not. The buck I shot this past season, with a .50 muzzle loader, shooting a 180gr patched roundball going maybe 1700fps, absolutely dropped the feller in his tracks. Granted I was close, maybe 20 yards, but the ball didn't exit, and his rear legs collapsed first, and then his front, like a spine shot, but I hit the chest, just in front of the shoulder.
I remember reading something somewhere, years ago, about how the soft lead roundballs, and slow twists, were highly effective because they "crushed" organs. Wish I knew where to find that article again, just to add more bullshit to the debate. All I know, roundballs were used to kill animals for years before modern bullets, and sharp sticks were used for years before bullets. If you poke a hole in the right place, the animal will die.
There's always been the light and fast, versus heavy and slow debate when it came to hunting effectiveness. I personally like heavy and slow, but I have no problems with the light and fast folks, I just like what I like.
Branden
I remember reading something somewhere, years ago, about how the soft lead roundballs, and slow twists, were highly effective because they "crushed" organs. Wish I knew where to find that article again, just to add more bullshit to the debate. All I know, roundballs were used to kill animals for years before modern bullets, and sharp sticks were used for years before bullets. If you poke a hole in the right place, the animal will die.
There's always been the light and fast, versus heavy and slow debate when it came to hunting effectiveness. I personally like heavy and slow, but I have no problems with the light and fast folks, I just like what I like.
Branden
Debunking the Infamous Rifle Knockdown Power Myth
The idea of rifle knockdown power is common in big-game hunting camps all over the world. Here's why knockdown power is a total myth.
www.outdoorlife.com 
Time for a nap I guess.
It's the Fappening . Oooo weeeee EEEEEEE Ooooo .
There are many schools of thought on this and my belief is that all work within a narrow scope of circumstances. We must pick the best tool for the particular set of circumstances we believe we will be presented with. Even then there are no guarantees.
The desired result is most commonly brought to pass by good marksmanship more so than bullet or caliber choice.
The desired result is most commonly brought to pass by good marksmanship more so than bullet or caliber choice.
We probably have some live experiments with this theory right here on snipers hide
@Bigfatcock if you go for a few months without shooting a load, does the next chick to receive a load incur remote neural damage?
There are a lot of really dumb women out there, so this could explain some...
I came to tactical shooting through the hunting window. I still use faster stuff than most guys, the faster bullets hit differently.
Heres some myth busting(or confirming?) for yall...
Keith Warren kills a deer with a .50 BMG, with A NEAR MISS
I dont know.. looks legit to me?
So, Hydrostatic shock being real..? Sure, Why not?
Imagine what a 9mm would've done! Probably woulda sucked the brain completely out the eye sockets!
Keith Warren kills a deer with a .50 BMG, with A NEAR MISS
I dont know.. looks legit to me?
So, Hydrostatic shock being real..? Sure, Why not?
Imagine what a 9mm would've done! Probably woulda sucked the brain completely out the eye sockets!
Heres some myth busting(or confirming?) for yall...
Keith Warren kills a deer with a .50 BMG, with A NEAR MISS
I dont know.. looks legit to me?
So, Hydrostatic shock being real..? Sure, Why not?
Imagine what a 9mm would've done! Probably woulda sucked the brain completely out the eye sockets!
I heard the the bullet passed through the eye sockets and didn’t touch the skull on the way through ir something like that.
If you stare at goats, You can kill them.
Just ‘sayin.
Sirhr
Just ‘sayin.
Sirhr
Heres some myth busting(or confirming?) for yall...
Keith Warren kills a deer with a .50 BMG, with A NEAR MISS
I dont know.. looks legit to me?
So, Hydrostatic shock being real..? Sure, Why not?
Imagine what a 9mm would've done! Probably woulda sucked the brain completely out the eye sockets!
Heres some myth busting(or confirming?) for yall...
Keith Warren kills a deer with a .50 BMG, with A NEAR MISS
I dont know.. looks legit to me?
So, Hydrostatic shock being real..? Sure, Why not?
Imagine what a 9mm would've done! Probably woulda sucked the brain completely out the eye sockets!
That would be aerodynamic shock.
And he missed a deer standing still at that close???
looked like revolver distances there. 
Hydrostatic shock is just one component of lethality of ammunition. If a bullet passed through the brain, without the shock, I imagine it would still be plenty lethal. An expanding 45-70, 400 grain bullet @ 1400 fps is just as lethal at 100 yards, as an expanding 180 grain, 300 Win Mag @ 3000fps, but analysis of the tissue damage will show major differences. Surely, someone has defined the components of lethality and what ratios are these components are available, across the spectrum of known ammunition. Aren't these differences in components of lethality, what make a 220 Swift awesome for varminting and a 416 Rigby great for dangerous African game?
They are pure evil, you can't kill evil by staring.
JFK getting his head canoe'd sure looked like something close to hydrostatic shock, by something much faster than 6.5 Carcano.
As far as remote incapacitation, Idk about that..
A mean ass high speed round passing very close to the spine or internal organs? Sure I could see the concussion wave doing damage. But you aint gone hit something in the leg and cause instant brain death unless its a 30mm autocannon round or some shit.
As far as remote incapacitation, Idk about that..
A mean ass high speed round passing very close to the spine or internal organs? Sure I could see the concussion wave doing damage. But you aint gone hit something in the leg and cause instant brain death unless its a 30mm autocannon round or some shit.
Most interesting theory I heard about the JFK head shot was that it was a 5.56 round. And get this, according to the author it was an AD from a Secret Service agent. Author was quite the SME and ballistics expert.
There was a presentation & paper in the 90’s at the ASLET small arms conference titled “ Strasberg Goat Trials”. They essentially surgically implanted several pressure transducers inside goats that would trip when a certain pressure was recorded. Then they shot them with various firearms and timed how long it took the goats to collapse. All the goats that collapsed immediately had the transducers tripped. Problem is the paper has no authors, at least any version I could find. So it really can’t be trusted.
I saw a good video on that theory of an ND from an AR-15 that a Secret Service Agent brought up from the bottom of the vehicle behind JFK's car.
It was new to the inventory and carried fragmenting rounds. If I remember the video correctly, the agent accidently slipped the safety to off and when looking for the threat put enough pressure on the trigger to send a round through JFK's head.
Two X-ray technicians that x-rayed the President's head were presented with other x-rays and told that they were to present those x-rays as JFK's head.
The x-rays with the fragments inside the President's skull disappeared. 30 years later the x-rays recanted their stories from 1963. The Secret Service agent with the AR-15 passed away.
Unfortunately, that YouTube video is no longer available. I'm shocked!
Interesting… I had never even heard of the “Hickey Theory” or the Bronson video until this thread and it is a fascinating rabbit hole.
This is a fun read…
How to debunk the George Hickey theory?
Every so often the topic of the JFK assassination comes up on different websites that I browse. It's always interesting for me to read the comments and conversations. I can get a sense of the way a number of people think and react to the subject. It's good to know that people are still interested...
educationforum.ipbhost.com
And for those who want to delve into terminal ballistics (of which hydrostatic shock is merely one element) look at ballistic gel videos that show how the shock waves and cavities propagate. It is real and it can contribute to very sudden death and incapacitation. But as the interactions with complex systems (human anatomy is a very complex system) have too many variables to compute, one gets different outcomes based on myriad factors.
So one can’t say, for sure, that this firearm/cartridge/projectile will perform X at all times. Simply put, the variables are too great to predict precisely. One can only estimate, leaving a lot of room at both ends of the effects spectrum for anomalies and the resulting “arguments.”
Never say never and never say always.
Sirhr
Came in here to see the debate and forgot my tinfoil hat, so I'll just share my experiences and leave it at that:
I've had quite a few hogs in my life drop from apparent vital hits, where no skeletal structure or part of the CNS was impacted. I would attribute this to hydrostatic shock.
In my experience, it is a combination of bullet size, velocity and construction (energy transfer) that give the best CHANCES at seeing this phenomenon. I've certainly experienced it more with a .308 than I have the 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, or .223.
There is no "off switch" for making it happen, it is just a random thing that occurs, but you do have to come in contact with the circulatory (or even just respiratory on occasion) system.
I doubt death is immediate...more like a knockout punch when the circulatory system is overpressured, and the animal bleeds out before consciousness is regained.
Fortunately, I have quite a few examples on video to look back on .
I've had quite a few hogs in my life drop from apparent vital hits, where no skeletal structure or part of the CNS was impacted. I would attribute this to hydrostatic shock.
In my experience, it is a combination of bullet size, velocity and construction (energy transfer) that give the best CHANCES at seeing this phenomenon. I've certainly experienced it more with a .308 than I have the 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, or .223.
There is no "off switch" for making it happen, it is just a random thing that occurs, but you do have to come in contact with the circulatory (or even just respiratory on occasion) system.
I doubt death is immediate...more like a knockout punch when the circulatory system is overpressured, and the animal bleeds out before consciousness is regained.
Fortunately, I have quite a few examples on video to look back on .
Both the hogs I whacked earlier this year (big… 250-300) with a .300 win Mag dropped where they stood and never even kicked. Energy transfer was massive!
Sirhr
Sirhr
Interesting read. Thanks for sharing that.Interesting… I had never even heard of the “Hickey Theory” or the Bronson video until this thread and it is a fascinating rabbit hole.
This is a fun read…
How to debunk the George Hickey theory?
Every so often the topic of the JFK assassination comes up on different websites that I browse. It's always interesting for me to read the comments and conversations. I can get a sense of the way a number of people think and react to the subject. It's good to know that people are still interested...educationforum.ipbhost.com
And for those who want to delve into terminal ballistics (of which hydrostatic shock is merely one element) look at ballistic gel videos that show how the shock waves and cavities propagate. It is real and it can contribute to very sudden death and incapacitation. But as the interactions with complex systems (human anatomy is a very complex system) have too many variables to compute, one gets different outcomes based on myriad factors.
So one can’t say, for sure, that this firearm/cartridge/projectile will perform X at all times. Simply put, the variables are too great to predict precisely. One can only estimate, leaving a lot of room at both ends of the effects spectrum for anomalies and the resulting “arguments.”
Never say never and never say always.
Sirhr
All four of these ground hogs were shot in the head with a .22-250 at 150 yards. I wish I had a better photo but the ground hog that is 2nd from the left is missing a head. It exploded when hit by a 55 grain Hornady V-Max.
Evidence of hydrostatic shock on one animal but not the others?
Evidence of hydrostatic shock on one animal but not the others?
Maybe, but I'd argue as a layman against it.
The theory behind the 'may or may not exist' on hydrostatic shock is that the "hydraulic shock" (super basically: a pressure surge of fluid) causes an incapacitating neurological response in a living thing - what we are debating right now as hydrostatic shock.
In a nutshell: Hydrostatic shock proponents believe that the effect is caused by an overpressure of fluid to the neurological system (eg. a bullet hitting the heart or main artery close by and the pressure wave of fluid causing the brain to shut off momentarily).
There is no hardcore proof that supports or denies it. Some doctors have published papers on either side...but they aren't nearly as peer-reviewed as they would like you to believe. To some, that doesn't matter, but to others those papers read about as trustworthy as a CNN article.
In your case with your groundhogs, I think that we are seeing the varying effects of what bullets will do terminally with sight deviations in location and impact angle.
YMMV
Here's one of my examples, if you don't mind shit YouTube videos.
Video one you can skip to the 1:30 mark and miss most of my nasally commentary. The bullet definitely went through the heart and lungs. The hydraulic shock either broke the near-side leg or dislocated it at the joint. The hog fell in place and kicked for several seconds before expiring. However, the bullet at no time ever contacted the CNS...However the animal dropped in place and never moved.
Video one you can skip to the 1:30 mark and miss most of my nasally commentary. The bullet definitely went through the heart and lungs. The hydraulic shock either broke the near-side leg or dislocated it at the joint. The hog fell in place and kicked for several seconds before expiring. However, the bullet at no time ever contacted the CNS...However the animal dropped in place and never moved.
It's called Hydrostatic Shock & Awe... the 10mm Atomic cartridge does it every time.
Jesus Christ. If a 9mm blows the lung outta the body.. WTF does that thing do?!
Yes
That would depend on bullet design and construction. Hammer Bullets wraps all the terminal performance goodness into their bullets. Solid mono copper with hollow points. The copper encasing the hollow point shed/fragment and create multiple would channels. They get out the way of the shank that continues to plow through the animal. The temporary cavity radiates large. I like to hit high shoulder so the "shock" temp cavity snaps the spine too. DRT kills.
Threshold velocity/velocity brackets can be different among manufacturers. 1800fps opening performance is what's claimed by Hammer.
Heres some myth busting(or confirming?) for yall...
Keith Warren kills a deer with a .50 BMG, with A NEAR MISS
I dont know.. looks legit to me?
So, Hydrostatic shock being real..? Sure, Why not?
Imagine what a 9mm would've done! Probably woulda sucked the brain completely out the eye sockets!
This was debunked. Slow-motion analysis shows that the bullet hit her in the eye. Keith Warren is a hack of the highest (= lowest) caliber.
Some of what folks are attributing to hydrostatic shock is also covered in 'temporary wound channel.'
If you watch ballistic gel performance, you will see a large 'temporary' wound channel open up that then closes up after the bullet passes through. If that 'temporary wound channel' happens to be larger in diameter than the object you are shooting... then it's not temporary! Though skin is tough and can hold a lot in... even on a wood chuck.
Even back to Civil War days, the medical reports of .58 caliber Minie's completely cuttong off arms and legs is in part due to the temporary wound channel. And these were not high-velocity, high-performance bullets. But they did flatten and promote huge energy transfer, especially at closer ranges.
Somewhere I have a picture of a large woodchuck I shot earlier this summer with my .14 Eichelberger. 12 or 14 grain bullet (Can't remember which) at well over 4500 FPS and the woodchuck was cleved nearly in half. Range about 40 yards. The energy transfer and velocity opened up a wound channel that was much wider than said woodchuck. Pink mist indeed.
Terminal ballistics is a fascinating area... and as most folk shoot steel or paper, one that is mostly irrelevant. Where it is very relevant is in hunting (clean kill is an ethical hunters responsibility) as well as in .mil and .le worlds, especially in situations where the shot must leave no room for a target to respond. Typically, the only reliable way to do this is a medulla hit. So a lot of terminal ballistics has focused here in recent years. But also in the 'regular' military ammo, etc.
Huge resources was put into the subject in the 1960's and resulted in the adoption of the .223. Also the Soviets put a lot into terminal ballistics when they adopted the 5.45mm, which had an air pocket in the tip. Those were very feared in the 1980's Afghan war because of the horrific wounds they inflicted. IIRC, there was even some discussion of whether those rounds with air gaps and steel pins violated the Geneva Convention (or similar accords). Not sure what was decided. But I seem to remember there were protests about the use of the 5.45 in A-stan back then.
The short version is that there have been millions spent on studies... entire forests cut down to write reports. It's all publically available. And probably, folks are still learning things!
Interesting thread... not that it will 'solve' anything. But it's a fun rabbit hole.
Sirhr
If you watch ballistic gel performance, you will see a large 'temporary' wound channel open up that then closes up after the bullet passes through. If that 'temporary wound channel' happens to be larger in diameter than the object you are shooting... then it's not temporary! Though skin is tough and can hold a lot in... even on a wood chuck.
Even back to Civil War days, the medical reports of .58 caliber Minie's completely cuttong off arms and legs is in part due to the temporary wound channel. And these were not high-velocity, high-performance bullets. But they did flatten and promote huge energy transfer, especially at closer ranges.
Somewhere I have a picture of a large woodchuck I shot earlier this summer with my .14 Eichelberger. 12 or 14 grain bullet (Can't remember which) at well over 4500 FPS and the woodchuck was cleved nearly in half. Range about 40 yards. The energy transfer and velocity opened up a wound channel that was much wider than said woodchuck. Pink mist indeed.
Terminal ballistics is a fascinating area... and as most folk shoot steel or paper, one that is mostly irrelevant. Where it is very relevant is in hunting (clean kill is an ethical hunters responsibility) as well as in .mil and .le worlds, especially in situations where the shot must leave no room for a target to respond. Typically, the only reliable way to do this is a medulla hit. So a lot of terminal ballistics has focused here in recent years. But also in the 'regular' military ammo, etc.
Huge resources was put into the subject in the 1960's and resulted in the adoption of the .223. Also the Soviets put a lot into terminal ballistics when they adopted the 5.45mm, which had an air pocket in the tip. Those were very feared in the 1980's Afghan war because of the horrific wounds they inflicted. IIRC, there was even some discussion of whether those rounds with air gaps and steel pins violated the Geneva Convention (or similar accords). Not sure what was decided. But I seem to remember there were protests about the use of the 5.45 in A-stan back then.
The short version is that there have been millions spent on studies... entire forests cut down to write reports. It's all publically available. And probably, folks are still learning things!
Interesting thread... not that it will 'solve' anything. But it's a fun rabbit hole.
Sirhr
Threshold velocity is of interest, do you think that’s why DOD has the maximum effective range of the 5.56 with MILSPEC projectile at 300 meters? I wonder if after 300 the round, while still capable of lethality, drops below the required threshold to do fragmentation & or hydrostatic shock.
Ever hear them stories back in 04-05 about the “blended metal” rounds?
Haji referred to the 5.45 round as the “ poison bullet” back in the 80s.
On another forum that I got banned from they were doing similar things to coyotes as you did with the woodchuck with 300 RUMs and 110 grain bullets. Apparently the entire midsection of the coyotes would disappear in a frothing red mist.
I wonder if a similar effect can be achieved with a .50 BMG running 500 grain thin jacketed projectiles?
Could it be folks? HAs this man identified "the brown noise."I don't know about hydrostatic shock/remote wounding but have heard that a near miss of any caliber can cause uncontrollable release of the bladder and/or bowels in some people.
Nah, everyone knows "the brown noise" is racking the slide on a pump shotgun.
Biden thought the brown noise was "welcome to the vatican."
There have been studies done by the US and other military entities that show a preference for a non-fatal wound. Dead soldier requires minimal care (aka removal from battlefield.) Wound requires multiple people to remove, care for, supply chain for medical care, morale issues, major resource consumption.
It's not a pleasant thought, but wounded soldiers are preferable to dead ones in a total war. Attrition does not just mean men. It means resources.
Sirhr
Similar threads
