B...... once the bullet strikes the medium of the target, [/b]high-speed camera shows that the bullet doesn't seem to actually contact the fluid much within the medium. The compressed fluid (shock wave) in front of (and to the sides of) the bullet is the thing that does the damage through the fluid, if the projectile is travelling fast enough. Thus the holes through things that are far bigger than the actual projectile used.[b]
A I'm really in the "Who cares?" camp though. I shoot stuff in specific places, and that stuff dies.
A I'm not in the Who Cares camp but I'm interested enuff to follow the discussion. I also have seen the 'hydraulic' effect and IMHO think that has been termed "Hydrostatic shock". I see how the term may very well be a contradiction or enigma. Regardless..
B I have NOT seen the effects on 'tanks' as you two have described but HAVE seen the 'internal' damage inside deer MUCH larger than the projectile (bullet). Obviously the bullet didn't EXPAND then retract in size. Sometimes one organ's or muscle's destruction causes damage to another.
Sometimes IMObservation the bullet has ONLY contacted thin meat and lungs YET the resultant damage can be awesome.
I'm NOT entering this debate, just making my observations. I 'think' Hydraulic Shock is more appropriate or descriptive. No one else has to agree with me. REDUX, I'm not entering this debate.
