Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 10 of 14 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
#12203674 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,755
akjeff Offline
Campfire Guide
akjeff  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,755
Alaska
I don't see how in the hell you can compare a sabot round penetrating a tank and a rifle bullet going through a critter??? When the penetrator goes through the armor, the friction and heat generated is incredible. The pressure inside the tank would have to go up considerably, given that interior volume remains the same but temperature rises. Obviously, things are going to fly out any holes in the armor. That ain't happening in a critter.

Jeff

CMG 300 BP
#12203729 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Angus1895]  
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303
crossfireoops Offline
Campfire Oracle
crossfireoops  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303
Southeastern AZ
Originally Posted by Angus1895
Jwp475 I am sorry, what do you mean?

I thought the study showed two groups of buffalo.

One group exhibited signs of Shock

One group did not.

The group showing the signs of shock also had pathological changes in the brain, away from the wound channel.
The other group did not
.


Exactly,......, and the theories presented at the time (VERY credible IMHO) as relates to this revolved around whether the Animal's hearts were in full contraction, or totally relaxed, at the moment of impact / expansion .....we're going back a LONG ways in American Gun writing here,.....but it made perfect sense to me then, and still does today.

I've been watching this thread carefully, and not without a lot of interest,.......see little or no common ground, or even REMOTE similarity between killing an armored turret full of men with a sabot penetrator to dropping an expanding OR SOLID hunting bullet into the space above a game animal's diaphragm.

no offense.....but have found it kinda' weird , actually.

Luck,

GTC


Member, Clan of the Border Rats
-- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain





#12203777 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: crossfireoops]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,516
Mule Deer Offline
Campfire Oracle
Mule Deer  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,516
Banana Belt, Montana
Well, it really got going after Angus posted this three days ago:

I have not read all the posts yet on this thread, but while working to day I thought of this explanation. We have two ways to express energy .....as measured as foot pounds, Or the other as a vacuum inducing " hydrostatic " shock. Hydrostatic shock relies on an exit hole to in essence " suck " or aspirated vascular tissue into non viability. Hydrostatic shock not only requires full penetration, it need velocity. These two requirements demand both shot placement, adequate barrel length, and cartridge powder capacity.

Foot pounds of energy are only felt by an animal if the projectile does not fully penetrate the beast. Once it fully penetrates the energy is still in the bullet wasted on the impact of wherever the bullet goes and hits next.

Using a heavy bullet with a large meplat helps ensure maximum foot pounds of energy are utilized in the process of shooting into an animal. The larger meplat lowers the sectional density limiting penetration, but the heavier bullet " stores" energy as it is sent down range. This energy will transfer into the beast as the bullet sheds its weight while going through the tissues.Thus reducing the need for precise, shot placement, barrel length . One could also employ a smaller cartridge length.....for faster actions.
Makes this approach perhaps a better compromise in point blank situations.

Just my thoughts.


John

"Gunwriters, as you know, aren't as informed as their readers are and if it wasn't for the readers, there would be no need for writers..."--Shrapnel, May 2015
#12203789 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303
crossfireoops Offline
Campfire Oracle
crossfireoops  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303
Southeastern AZ
John,....I just read the latest postings over there as well,......and can only reflect that WEIRDNESS is loose, and running freely there, now.
Oh well,.....
It is good to know that they still die the way they've always done, though,....

GTC


Member, Clan of the Border Rats
-- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain





#12204011 - 08/12/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,840
Angus1895 Offline
Campfire Guide
Angus1895  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,840
Idaho
Both groups were shot in the same place.

Now remember I have not read the entire study nor is the study my own.

But this is what was published in 2015 ? By Jim Carmichael not me.

Very weird for something professed to be debunked.

No one has shown when, how , or why it was debunked.

But I also do not know how credible the study I posted is.

I call that beyond weird.........perhaps self serving marketing.

I have no idea from who or what.

Just my opinion by a Dumd ass Tanker, that happens to be a Bovine Doctor.

Why are there no comments on the 2010 Iraq study?

Granted tanks are not large dangerous animals, but I do not use them as a study, just an analogy of a personal experience. If we must debate by attacking personal analogies I feel sorry for the campfire.

But who freaking cares.......I got no bullets to sell you.

I would just like to be presented the evidence of the debunking! And or criticism of the published recent studies and or both. Thanks.

Last edited by Angus1895; 08/12/17.

"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills












#12204682 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,971
HuntnShoot Offline
Campfire Ranger
HuntnShoot  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,971
15 min from elk, MT
I believe I understand the point you are making, Angus.

My older brother was a tanker, stuck in Death Valley for his stint in the army. He first told me about the sabot rounds and their function when I was a teen, and yet had little knowledge of physics, but the concept fascinated me, as he said they did as claimed, both in the test videos he watched and then in the live fire exercises of which he was part. The pressure differential within the turret caused by the projectile did indeed suck all kinds of stuff through the tiny exit hole created by the projectile.

The confusions here are manifold though. First of all is the confusion of air vs fluids. Air IS a fluid. So fluid dynamics play a part. And what you describe, Angus, is a vacuum force which happens within the enclosed space of a tank turret when the mile-per-second depleted uranium projectile strikes and passes through the turret. The vacuum force created can easily be demonstrated in the fluid media of air or water as slow or rapid differentiations in pressure causing fluid movement. Drag a boat oar through water and watch what happens. Variations in pressure at the front and back of the oar cause fluid flow. Get on a plane, and the wings do the same thing, where the air over the top of the wing causes such a difference in pressure that the whole plane is lifted. Or my first real-world example of this on the scale of big things: in my girlfriend's crappy jeep driving down an interstate with a strong headwind that kept us from going over 60, until a passing semi swung into our lane nearly cutting me off, and the semi ended up dragging us about 80 miles, more or less, while I barely used the gas pedal.

These are the same forces that bullets cause in various fluids.


I belong on eroding granite, among the pines.
#12204726 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,840
Angus1895 Offline
Campfire Guide
Angus1895  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,840
Idaho
Thank you hunt n shoot. I know in the savage group there is a retired Tank Comander. I am just leery as to how much to discuss and share on a public forum about Army Training.

However I am fascinated by the science of debunking studies without articles or references to rely on for evidence to support positions.
But what ever, I know personally I have learned a bunch of things during this debate and find the whole concept of hydrostatic shock fascinating. I wonder where one could apply to help the lovely lady shooter go over her " figures."


"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills












#12204834 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Angus1895]  
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,112
bwinters Offline
Campfire Tracker
bwinters  Offline
Campfire Tracker

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,112
Smoky Mountains, TN
I'll take a bullet through the lungs for $500 Alex......................


Adversity doesn't build character, it reveals it.
#12204846 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,811
smokepole Offline
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,811
Colorado
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
These are the same forces that bullets cause in various fluids.


I think the term for what you're describing is cavitation. Already mentioned by MD, Jordan, and possibly a few others.

As far as "hydrostatic shock" or better yet, "remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets through a hydraulic effect in their liquid-filled tissues," I don't have the background or time to research or de-bunk it. Or the inclination. I'll leave that to people who've studied it like doc rocket and MD.

All I can offer is a few observations. They certainly don't "de-bunk" it using science but they tell me all I need to know to satisfy my own curiosity. Most of the animals I've shot through the ribs (and lungs) have run a fair distance. I didn't measure the distance or keep notes on it but I'd say 40-100 yards is a good average, some a little more, some less. So they were not "incapacitated" by a shock wave; they were incapacitated by massive blood loss, drop in blood pressure, and being unable to breathe. One mule deer buck was standing in sage broadside at 30 yards. The bullet blew a huge hole through the rib cage with blood and lung tissue splattered on the sage 20 yards behind him. Yet he ran about 150 yards. Definitely not "incapacitated." He finally ran head-on into a tree and collapsed.

Some others dropped on the spot, but that number is about 10% of the total or maybe a little more. I didn't perform an autopsy so I don't know the precise cause of death. It could be some remote hemorrhaging of blood vessels in the CNS. But if so, it only happens 10 or 20% of the time based on my observations so IME it's not a very reliable or predictable phenomenon. If it was a simple matter of physics as its proponents believe, it seems they'd all drop on the spot.

High shoulder shots that hit bone and neck shots are a different story.



A wise man is frequently humbled.

#12204905 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 30,969
jorgeI Offline
Campfire Oracle
jorgeI  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 30,969
Orange Park, Florida
Wow, first the earth cooled...
Anyway, after all you forty-pound head guys introduced all of your theories, data etc., I thought I'd post a few more comments on the "speed kills" side of things from a purely empirical perspective. I don't have the hunting experience of a few of you guys, but from personal experience and what I've gathered from speaking to various gents with lots of experience, I offer the following:

American PH Mark Sullivan, whom I have met several times and my friend Allen Day (RIP) hunted with him, in his opinion the most dramatic DRT kills on the big cats has been with super-high velocity cartridges. If some of you have watched any of his videos, there are quite a few cat kills and without question the quickest kills have been with the 30-378, 378 Weatherby (gasp) calibers. There are also quite a bit shot with the 416 Rigby, 458 Winchester Mag etc. If you get the chance to watch these, the difference speed makes is very obvious. Further, Ross Seyfried in his writings has also opined (and observed ) the most dramatic kills on Cape Buffalo have been with the 416 Weatherby @2700 fps. Lastly, I have personally spoken with Connie Brooks and both her and her husband when testing the TSX on Buffalo, also related Buffalo reacted more when shot with the 350 TSX than the 400. All of this is empirical of course, but I can tell you from personal experience, not a SINGLE deer I've ever shot wit the 257 Weatherby and 100gr Hornady Spire Points has EVER taken a step and that over fifty deer. And of course I still maintain that while shot placement is paramount, there are sensible minimums when dealing with dangerous game.


Teddy Roosevelt, John Wayne, Winston Churchill paid to hunt...
#12204944 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,811
smokepole Offline
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,811
Colorado
Yes, speed kills. There's no doubt that monometal bullets work best at high velocities. One reason is that they don't open as well at slower velocities and don't cause as big a wound. That would be the simplest explanation.






A wise man is frequently humbled.

#12205004 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: smokepole]  
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,112
bwinters Offline
Campfire Tracker
bwinters  Offline
Campfire Tracker

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,112
Smoky Mountains, TN
Originally Posted by smokepole
Yes, speed kills. There's no doubt that monometal bullets work best at high velocities. One reason is that they don't open as well at slower velocities and don't cause as big a wound. That would be the simplest explanation.





I'm here on the speed kills subject. Might also be a good bit of shrapnel effect from high velocity bullet/bone chunks wink

Last edited by bwinters; 08/13/17.

Adversity doesn't build character, it reveals it.
#12205079 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,971
HuntnShoot Offline
Campfire Ranger
HuntnShoot  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,971
15 min from elk, MT
Originally Posted by Angus1895
Thank you hunt n shoot. I know in the savage group there is a retired Tank Comander. I am just leery as to how much to discuss and share on a public forum about Army Training.

However I am fascinated by the science of debunking studies without articles or references to rely on for evidence to support positions.
But what ever, I know personally I have learned a bunch of things during this debate and find the whole concept of hydrostatic shock fascinating. I wonder where one could apply to help the lovely lady shooter go over her " figures."


As others have pointed out, the term "hydrostatic shock" is self-contradictory at worst and a misnomer at best. What I was hoping to explain a bit in my post is why the fluid dynamics of a bullet through the rib cage/lungs can at least parallel some of the effects of a sabot round through a tank turret, including drawing tissue and fluids out the exit.

And smokepole, speaking of cavitation, once the bullet strikes the medium of the target, 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. I don't understand all the physics involved, but I have seen the effect.

I'm really in the "Who cares?" camp though. I shoot stuff in specific places, and that stuff dies. If I screw up badly, the clowns may come out, and a rodeo ensues. I prefer bullets that start off heavy for caliber and lose weight within the animal, because they seem to do a better job of putting stuff down, regardless of whether there are clowns involved. I've not had any luck getting monos to shoot well for me, or else I'd likely have tried them on animals by now, to do some high speed, small projectile testing.

This year, most of my hunting will be done with cast WFN, unless some distance shooting (over 300) ends up being necessary. The elk seem to be in the high, thick timber th last two years. Speaking of "stoppers", I think a hardcast 44 cal 310 at 2150 qualities.

Last edited by HuntnShoot; 08/13/17.

I belong on eroding granite, among the pines.
#12205164 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: HuntnShoot]  
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 9,411
jwall Offline
Campfire Outfitter
jwall  Offline
Campfire Outfitter

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 9,411
Southern Arkansas
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot


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. grin

Jerry


jwall- *** 3100 guy***

Slow bullets don't impress me.

A Flat Trajectory is NEVER a handicap.


#12205867 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,840
Angus1895 Offline
Campfire Guide
Angus1895  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,840
Idaho
[img]http://Direct contact refers to a bullet directly striking and destroying one of the major nerve centers, including the thoracic and cervical vertebrae, the brain or the autonomic plexus, regardless of velocity, this will result in instant death.

Indirect contact refers to the effects of a high velocity bullet imparting its energy, creating a hydrostatic shock wave. In terminal ballistics, the terms hydraulic shock and hydrostatic shock both refer to kinetic energy transferred as shock waves through flesh, however, each term describes different results.

Hydraulic shock is the civil engineers term also known as water hammer but in terminal ballistics context refers to the pressure of accelerated fluid particles that create the temporary wound channel.

Hydrostatic shock transfer refers to the effect when shock waves travel through flesh to distant nerve centers, disrupting their ability to emit electrical impulses. Be very much aware that the terms hydraulic and hydrostatic shock are quite often misused by both hunters and professionals - including ballisticians working for bullet making companies.[/img]

Definitions from the Terminal Ballistic research web sight. New Zealand I believe

Last edited by Angus1895; 08/13/17.

"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills












#12205885 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,840
Angus1895 Offline
Campfire Guide
Angus1895  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,840
Idaho
More from that sight. I took your advice steelhead and tried paragraphs.

[img]http://Velocity This has the greatest effect on hydrostatic shock. Put simply, the higher the impact velocity, the greater the shock. Velocity is also the most influencing factor in hydraulic shock, having a huge bearing on the size of the internal wound channel.

Hydrostatic shock, in bore sizes from .243” up to .338”, begins to lesson at impact velocities below 2600fps and most modern high velocity sporting cartridges including the magnums gradually lose shocking power beyond 300 to 350 yards. Of the thousands of animals harvested during TBR tests, 2600fps has been the most common cut off point with repeatable results (reactions) occurring when deliberately testing the impact velocity of 2650fps versus the impact velocity of 2550fps.

High velocity is not however a sole factor to be worshipped and held above other factors. For example, if velocity is increased too far without increasing bullet weight, the surface tension of water within the animal can cause so much resistance as to overcome the energy of the bullet. Ultra-high velocities can then also lead to shallow penetration. Generally speaking, the high velocity cut off point for small bore bullets used on medium game is around 3150fps. If for example we are using a 140 grain 7mm bullet at an impact velocity of 3250fps, chances are that even if the bullet penetrates vitals, the animal may still run some distance. One factor to be very careful of with ultra-high velocity conditions is to not blame a delayed kill exclusively on ‘bullet blow up’. For example, if we were using the same 140gr 7mm bullet and the entry wound did indeed show signs of wide entry wounding and surface bullet blow up (or possibly blow back), even though this is undesirable performance, we still need to investigate further if we are to truly understand factors at play. In this instance, once the animal is recovered, it is important to study the vital organs and determine whether they were actually destroyed. If the vitals were destroyed, we can then conclude that the bullet did its job (even if in a less than desirable manner) but without hydrostatic shock.

A noticeable change in hydrostatic shock occurs as bullet diameter is increased to .358” (such as the .35 Whelen) and larger bores (see bullet diameter). With the medium and large bores, hydrostatic shock can occur on our medium game species at velocities as low as 2200fps. Fast incapacitation can remain evident at velocities as low as 1800fps depending on bullet designs. Below 1800fps, the wider the bore the better. Further to this, there are also highly traumatic pistol bullet designs such as the Hornady XTP. Frangible bullets tend to produce coma at much lower velocities than traditional hunting bullets (see bullet construction). With frangible bullets at low velocities, instant coma may be due to hydraulic shock causing blood pressure spikes in the brain as suggested by Hornady ballisticians. In other instances, coma can follow very shortly after impact due to multiple pain centers being disrupted to such an extent that the animal must go into coma. That said, frangible bullets may also send out particles which strike the CNS directly. When testing hydrostatic shock on Bovines, I have discovered that impact velocities of 2600fps with suitable bullet weights (and construction) produced instant poleaxe in a repeatable manner. However, in many instances Bovines would attempt to rise, the action of attempting to rise resulting in increased blood loss with death following within seconds.[/img]


"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills












#12205934 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Angus1895]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,811
smokepole Offline
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,811
Colorado
Originally Posted by Angus1895
Velocity is also the most influencing factor in hydraulic shock, having a huge bearing on the size of the internal wound channel.



So what is it that kills the animal deader and faster, hydraulic shock or a bigger wound channel?



A wise man is frequently humbled.

#12205943 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,840
Angus1895 Offline
Campfire Guide
Angus1895  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,840
Idaho
I think what the difference between dynamic or hydrodynamic is the shock wave force of the movement of the fluid, which would include air. Hence hydrodynamic force is what would destroy or liquefy tissues in the direct area of the hydraulic wave,pull, or suck the tissues ,fluids ,or crewman out the hole. And you are correct the Tank Sabot Round is very very fast.

Static means something NOT in mointion. And the tendency for a body not in motion to resist being put in motion.Hence the term is used to refer to the energy entering the not in motion fluid mass, the fluid mass has the ability to resist movement and hence transfer this energy to adjacent tissues or areas of the body. Hence hydrostatic.

So I would postulate hydraulic or hydrodynamic shock is direct cavity damage the projectile caused by entry and potietial passage through.

Static the damage of adjacent areas not in direct contact with the cavity the projectile entered and or penetrated.

Hence the video of the women shooting demonstrates both effects. The can or plastic bucket is the cavity hit, the broken cinder block the adjacent tissue or area not involved in the hydraulic wave or wound channel.

Once again just my opinion .


"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills












#12205948 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,840
Angus1895 Offline
Campfire Guide
Angus1895  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,840
Idaho
Smoke pole is that something I wrote or something I shared from the New Zealand web sight?

Like I tried to first say, I am not a big believer in relying on light and fast, I am just trying to understand it well enough to explain it.

I prefer hunting with heavier and bigger and perhaps more frangebale ordinants. I do not really find moderate to stout recoil a deterrent in my shooting. I also personally use mostly vintage archaic calibers and cartridges like the 300 savage or the 45/70.

It looks like there is a definite less need for speed for stopping power as the bullet gets larger around, and heavier will have more ( please insert correct term) I would call it energy.

This according to Terminal Ballistic Research I shared.

The lovely lady video showed the bigger the round the more carnage was caused both direct and indirect.

Last edited by Angus1895; 08/13/17.

"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills












#12206008 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,971
HuntnShoot Offline
Campfire Ranger
HuntnShoot  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,971
15 min from elk, MT
I question the evidence for what the Kiwis call hydrostatic shock. The definition they give is not testable. There is no way to test whether nerves get disrupted by some energy wave, and therefore become unable to transmit a neural signal. And if the effect is so distinct, then why are its supposed causes not distinct? I.E., why do two animals of same type and mass, stuck by same bullet at same speed in same location, not produce identical hydrostatic shock effects?


I belong on eroding granite, among the pines.
#12206105 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Jim in Idaho]  
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,840
Angus1895 Offline
Campfire Guide
Angus1895  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,840
Idaho
Hunt and Shoot......there actually is a study on that very subject measuring nerve conductivity in pigs. I think that it is where he got the information. I didn't post it because I found the bovine Carmichael study , and the Iraq autopsies study more recent and compelling IMO. If you want to read the study look up hydrostatic shock go into the Wikipedia discussion scroll down and you will see the pig study.

I am also beginning to suspect on lung cavity shots the lung cavity is a very dynamic set of organs. It has a variation in air to fluid, as in lung inflation as by respiration point at impact. It may also be affected by if the heart valves are close and if the heart is in the systolic or dyastolic cycle of beating. There fore there could be a big variation in shock induced by projectile impact even though location of impact is similar between case events.

Last edited by Angus1895; 08/13/17.

"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills












#12206113 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Angus1895]  
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 17,232
APDDSN0864 Offline
Campfire Kahuna
APDDSN0864  Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 17,232
Alaska/Texas
Originally Posted by Angus1895
...I do not know if she should get De Bunked or not?


Nice boobs, funky "pouty" lips, and lousy trigger manipulation. I guess it's OK if you're a 14 year old boy looking for something to jack off to...

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

#12206144 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Angus1895]  
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 9,411
jwall Offline
Campfire Outfitter
jwall  Offline
Campfire Outfitter

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 9,411
Southern Arkansas
Originally Posted by Angus1895

It looks like there is a definite less need for speed for stopping power as the bullet gets larger around, and heavier will have more ( please insert correct term) I would call it energy.


Angus - be advised that 'some' here at the Fire don't believe that FPE is real or don't believe it's important.

Maybe ? I'm just old skool having 'learnt' during the 70s. & 80s about reloading, shooting, & killing.
But I believe that no work gets done without 'energy'.

To illustrate my point, what happens IF we flip a bullet into the side of an animal ?
We may startle or spook it, but there is no damage.

OTOH, if that same bullet is propelled at a mere 1000 fps, WORK gets done enuff to
injure (damage) or kill the animal.

Enuff E is required to produce (work) lethal damage.

That's an effort to illustrate the point in layman's terminology.

Jerry


jwall- *** 3100 guy***

Slow bullets don't impress me.

A Flat Trajectory is NEVER a handicap.


#12206178 - 08/13/17 Re: Killing versus stopping [Re: Angus1895]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,811
smokepole Offline
Campfire Kahuna
smokepole  Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,811
Colorado
Originally Posted by Angus1895
Smoke pole is that something I wrote or something I shared from the New Zealand web sight?
.


I don't know, you tell me, You posted it, right?



A wise man is frequently humbled.

Page 10 of 14 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Moderated by  RickBin, SYSOP 

AIH 160 1
Who's Online Now
132 registered members (300jimmy, 117LBS, 19352012, 309coug, 1OntarioJim, 2500HD, 15 invisible), 499 guests, and 577 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
RBCN 160 3









Copyright © 2000-2018 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.092s Queries: 15 (0.005s) Memory: 1.0961 MB (Peak: 1.4626 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-10-21 10:19:43 UTC