Speed kills, or at least it adds to the equation at least in some instances.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Just because some of us have pointed out that there isn't any such thing as "hydrostatic shock," doesn't mean high velocity doesn't have significant effects on wound-channel size, and hence "killing power." So no, we have not "debunked the high velocity small bullet theory." All we debunked was your contentions about hydrostatic shock.
For that matter, Elmer Keith was very aware of the advantages of high velocity--but he started big game hunting before expanding bullets could withstand impacting large animals at high velocity. He wasn't against high velocity, but poor bullet performance--though he evidently had a hard time separating the two in his mind, due to his early experiences with relatively fragile bullets.
Despite that, he continued to use some that couldn't even withstand moderate velocity. When he went on his first safari, for some reason he took his .333 OKH with some very fragile 300-grain Kynoch bullets. Sometimes they didn't even exit Thompson gazelles the size of mule deer fawns. This was a decade AFTER John Nosler started selling his Partition bullets, and Keith would have been far better off using a .30-06 with 180-grain Partitions.
Today we have bullets that will expand and penetrate when started at 3500 fps or more. I know this not because of any assumptions about bullet performance, but because I thoroughly tested them BEFORE going hunting, enough to know they'd work fine in the field. And they have, on quite a few big game animals.
I don't really understand how we got from discussing killing versus stopping power to here, but apparently you've missed a lot of what's been happening with bullet development since the .45-70 appeared.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
The correct term I was trying to feeble explain is hydrodynamic s. Not hydrostatic. For this I apologize. I often wondered if it would not be perhaps safer to not seal up the turret so these properties would not be so profound upon impact. Look up how a fin stabilized sabot round works. There is a huge discussion on the principle and Theroems.. The actual reports of testing during my training is perhaps too morbid to put on an open forum. But I meant Hydrodynamic........not Hydrostatic. I apologize for the confusion.
"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills
I always thought hydrostatic shock was the loss of consciousness due to instantaneous massive trauma sort of like a person being in shock from a bad injury. It doesn't kill but puts the animal down immediately. I read this somewhere and it made sense to me. I also read this is more likely to occur with fast projectiles vs slower ones. What are ya'lls thoughts on this?
Hydraulic shock is self explanatory.
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store; not a government agency.
A rib cage is a sealed compartment under a slight negative air pressure, containing tissues which destroying is the desired goal with a projectile penetrating it.
A tank turret is usually a sealed compartment under slight positive air pressure. It contains tissues, I.e. Crewmen whose destruction is the goal of penetrating the compartment with a projectile.
"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
I spoke with him a couple of years ago at DSC convention. He was quite non-chalant about it. Incidentally, the rifle was a 458...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
A rib cage is a sealed compartment under a slight negative air pressure.....
Getting waaaaay off topic here but a rib cage is not a sealed compartment. If it was we couldn't inhale and exhale. And it's under slight negative pressure when we're inhaling, and slight positive pressure when we're exhaling. Apropos of nothing.
There are more differences than similarities between a rib cage and a tank turret
So where does a rib cage " leak". If it does leak ? How can one use the diaphragm to breath? When on enters the thoracic cavity with a knife why does air rush in? Thanks.
"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills
I spoke with him a couple of years ago at DSC convention. He was quite non-chalant about it. Incidentally, the rifle was a 458...
Another video that shows how a charging animal can be "turned" by application(s) of big, heavy bullets. It also shows what happens if that same big, heavy bullet is not placed exactly right to begin with.
Ed
"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell
A lot of truth here. The problem in my experience is this: very few...and by that I mean I have maybe seen a handful of hunters in my 30+ year guiding career that can handle big calibers. Any time you start getting into the 338 WM kind of recoil accuracy starts to suffer. There are some that can shoot the big calibers accurately don't get me wrong, but the vast majority of hunters would be way better off sticking with something they can shoot. That is my biggest pet peeve with these types of threads; guys read them and think they gotta have a 416 to hunt grizzly, or browns. It just aint true. What happens is they bring a rifle they can't handle on a hunt and either wound an animal ( that a guide like me has to risk life and limb to find ) or completely miss. They would be much better off if they knew that a 30/06 class rifle with good bullets will do the job just fine. Im currently using a 338 Federal and with good bullets I get all the penetration I need for any angle on interior bears. I've killed wounded bears at point blank range, and shot clean through a big bull bison at 300 yards. More isn't needed, but if you can accurately shoot them by all means bring a heavy rifle.
Ain't that the truth. One of the years I hunted Kodiak another hunter brought his 460 Wby. It took him nearly a dozen rounds to confirm his zero. I didn't see him when I returned from the hunt. Apparently he had shot at a brown bear several times and flat ass missed. He phoned it in, told his guide he was done hunting and went home early.
So where does a rib cage " leak". If it does leak ? How can one use the diaphragm to breath? When on enters the thoracic cavity with a knife why does air rush in? Thanks.
So where does a rib cage " leak". If it does leak ?
Did I say a rib cage leaks? I don't believe I did but nice try.
I have a coffee cup sitting on my desk. It holds fluid and doesn't leak. Yet it's not sealed and it's open to the atmosphere. Same as your lungs, which are inside your rib cage, are open to the atmosphere. Reconcile that with your "logic."
And while you're at it, continue commenting on the similarity of a bullet penetrating a ribcage and an artillery shell penetrating an armored vehicle.
And throw in a few words about the necessity of blowing lung tissue out the exit hole while you're at it.
"Thanks."
Edited to add, Angus, before you respond, know that I'm done commenting on this subject. This is an interesting thread and I don't want to detract from it any more. So blaze away, but don't expect any more back and forth from me.
