Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Why hydrostatic and not correctly hydrodynamic?

Damn, I love this thread - and thrive on mind torturing things. However, I can easily appreciate why others choose to be dismissive and comfortable.

I got tired many years ago of firearms topics or discussions that begin and end with "I shot my deer with my 30-06 and it went dead."

Boring!

Bullets do not cause shock waves in tissue for several reasons:

1. Shock waves occur when a compressible fluid, like the atmosphere, is compressed by the movement of a solid body ad a speed greater than the speed of sound in that same gas. Water and blood are not compressible.

2. The speed of sound in water is about 4550 ft/second, so no common bullet is traveling fast enough to set up any sort of shock wave, even if such a thing were possible.

3. Tissue is not an incompressible fluid, but a compressible solid which contains fluids. It is elastic and will attempt to return to its former shape.

The so-called theory of hydrostatic shock is simply another case of laymen ( gun writers and bar stool ballisticians ) misusing term from physics in a pseudoscientific speculation about a subject they do not understand.

Ron!
You should be an engineer, we torture ourselves like this all the time...
And I agree with you 100%, this is what makes this forum so much fun!
Mr. Howell,
Your words always bring to mind that saying that I believe was attributed to Finn Aagard:
"life is a force that cannot be described in terms of x, y, and z"
-at least I think it was Finn that said that.

I'm not much interested in pondering minutiae or semantics but can tell you this. A fast expanding bullet @ high speed will generally drop a whitetail on the spot if it is relaxed. BT/DT too many times to discount the obvious results.

Prezactly <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

HBB

Then I should apologize for trying to spoil your fun. Puzzle away, to your heart's content. I prefer the comfort that practical knowledge provides and the fun that learning provides. My limited brain (one cell still firing now and then!) can't keep-up with what the world offers of either one. Oh, to be young, vigorous, bullet-proof, and infallible again!

I should lock you up in a round room for a month and tell you to [bleep] in the corner.....

Ken
Took the concept of energy transfer damaging hearts (and brains) through vessels to a group of cardiac surgeons, anaesthesiologists and other docs. Most are at least casual hunters. They ridiculed the concept for many reasons, the most obvious being the idea the arteries are rigid enough to allow that transfer without loss. A contorted rubber hose (of an artery) will simply not allow that to happen.
art

Art what are you doing up at this hour? Give it a rest, man! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

DD
What specifically are you referring to in that lengthy piece? Where exactly does it disagree with my statement?
art

Kid
Fell asleep on the couch watching the shootout (and looking for Grayling's head) and got my nightly fix of sleep in early... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
art

I think I got the walkin' pneumonia, or somethin' like it.
Watch out for that AK Grayling, he has feet that could crush a man, even if by accident! Might be a hydrostatic thing.

You obviously understand � if I read you right, you're dismissing my posts and preferring your own notion of comfortable or at least entertaining cogitation. Nothing wrong with that, I guess.

They never saw it happen, obviously. It's obviously too rare � if it occurs at all � to be considered typical of anything or predictable. Maybe someday I'll run a test that your "contorted rubber hose" analogy suggests. Just figuring-out how to set it up will be fun.

Do you know what community of thinkers most vociferously opposed an�sthesia when it was first proposed? and why?

Perhaps we could refer to the effect as a "local overpressure wave". It does happen and routinely in shooting game. That bloodshot meat many complain about is the result of a local pressure wave that caused the cell walls in that area to burst because of a rapid and violent change in pressure. Liquids being more dense than a gas transfer vibration and energy at a faster rate. That damage does cause some "shock" as in it does place demands on the nervous system and that does contribute to cumulative stress on the nervous system, it doesn't kill however by itself. So the effect does exist and isn't the killer some believe it to be.

Wasnt there a German ww-2 era wounding study that determined a bullet traveling at 2600fps or greater caused markedly more damge in flesh than one traveling below 2600?

Steelhead-
An umbrella is the usual answer, but the correctness of the answer depends on their relative sizes. You can have some fun trying to decide whether a chimney is symbollically phallic or yonic.

Ken H.-
I think 19-century theologians opposed the use of anesthetics, particularly during childbirth. Genesis says that women are to bring forth their children in pain, and anesthetics were a means of allowing women to escape their Christian duty of suffering.

The bunch that thinks up religious rules has traditionally been of the masculine gender. One notes wryly that this group has mostly avoided the parallel injuction in Genesis that males were to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow. (Yeah, I know; my brush is a little broad here; Jan Hus e.g. spilled a bit of sweat when he was roasted - by non-sweating clerics.)
--Bob

Wow! I didn't think there was that much misdirected energy, defensiveness, missing-the-point and vulgarity out there.

Could it be the time of year? Our deer are in rut right now and more than a little distracted. Is that catching?

Thanks to all for your inputs - with the obvious exception of Steelhead, whose Internet style is nothing if not unique.

Howdy Ken -

My comments were anything but directed at you personally. I myself very much appreciate your experienced comments on things. Thank you for being so active and helpful - and for so freely sharing your wealth of knowledge.

I am surprised that you may have taken my banter and dialogue the way you apparently have. Sorry again for the garbled reception. I shall attempt to be more careful in the future. That's a promise!

I don't know, is a white haired 66 year old service-incurred 100% disabled Veteran living alone all those smug things you think me to be? I think not. I am afraid that this may be a misassumption on your part that missed the bullseye, if not the whole target and the backstop as well.

No hard feelings though. That is not my style or way. Never has been. "To err is human and etc."

Sorry again for the ruffled feathers. Didn't mean to do that, most especially to you! Just chasing an idea with too much time to do so.

Sincerely,
Ron

No ruffles here, Amigo. If I'd been miffed, I wouldn't've posted any response at all. Anger soon goes away if it's not fed, and it isn't my idea of a pet to keep around. Print feeds it and encourages it so that it gnaws at you. Not my idea of a peaceful house or a pleasant life.

Whether you see me in what's left of the flesh or "see" me in print, what you see is more than there is.

Sleep easy.