I guess I'll ring in here.
First, I'd like to say that this has been one of the most in depth and interesting threads I've run across. Blackwater, thanks for taking time out to share. It would take me 4 days to type what you did. I'm SLOOOWWW.
I'm going to skip out on the intellectual side of this conversation, because I'm obviously outgunned, but I do want to address it on a more practical level. Whether we call it hydrostatic shock or hydraulic shock (I've always called it energy transfer) I'm 100% certain it exists in principal. Here's why.
Would you rather have your hand on top of an empty or a full soda can when it gets shot. I'd really prefer to avoid both, but if forced to take a pick I would opt for the empty, as I suspect the rest of the readership would. Not exactly apples to oranges here. Now reflect on the amount of damage to that full soda can with solids and expanding bullets. I equate the energy transfer of an expanding bullet to the concussion of an explosive. Even if the shrapnel doen't get you, the concussion can kill you. There is a shock wave in both cases. In the case of bullets, the more rapidly expanding bullets impart a more pronounced shock wave.
Trying to explain this reminds me of why I'm not an engineer or physical scientist!
Paul
